Re: [Vo]:Knol article uploaded
Looks like I fixed my name on KNOL by changing my name on Google. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: That was a piece of cake. See: http://knol.google.com/k/jed-rothwell/cold-fusion/2zjj2hvn3qzi5/2# As you see, I plagiarized the whole thing from Cold Fusion for Dummies by Ed Storms. (Ed originally wrote this as a replacement for the Wikipedia cold fusion article.) I think we need to make this somewhat different from the LENR-CANR paper because otherwise Google may say it is the same thing and they do not want duplicated material. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ICCF-14 agenda will be uploaded real soon now
Steve, I suggest you consider that the visa problems as well as other issues might be a factor in not having a final agenda. A draft agenda has been sent to the speakers for their input. Would you rather have an agenda that is incomplete or has to be seriously changed, as was the case with the APS meeting, or one that was complete. In any case, what importance do you find in having a list of speakers at this time. You are going to the conference in any case. The final list will be available when you register. Ed Steven Krivit wrote: The ICCF-14 organizers have been busting their butts for a week or more, trying to pin down the agenda. They were supposed to be finished days ago, but there are many last minute changes and cancellations. I am sorry to say that in many cases it is because so many participants are old and in bad health, or broke. We have a speaker who has to go in for surgery that week, and others have to cancel or make special arrangements. They hope to wrap up the agenda today and upload it to ICCF-14.org - Jed Jed, You are blaming this delay on the participants? Are you out of your mind? S
Re: [Vo]:ICCF-14 agenda will be uploaded real soon now
Good point, Horace. Most people preregester before the details of the talks are available in any case. Nevertheless, although I also would like the information sooner, it is very difficult these days to have foreigners attend any conference in the US. The delay that this problem produces should not be blamed on the organizers. It is better taken up with the Bush administration. Regards, Ed Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 3, 2008, at 4:38 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Steve, I suggest you consider that the visa problems as well as other issues might be a factor in not having a final agenda. A draft agenda has been sent to the speakers for their input. Would you rather have an agenda that is incomplete or has to be seriously changed, as was the case with the APS meeting, or one that was complete. In any case, what importance do you find in having a list of speakers at this time. You are going to the conference in any case. The final list will be available when you register. Ed Some interested folks might not have made reservations. Before spending thousands of dollars to attend a conference it seems to me important to have at least a tentative clue as to what might be presented, or at least what is being attempted to be presented. An tentative set of abstracts published with caveats is better than none. I think the actual schedule is comparatively unimportant for those who have an interest in attending the whole conference. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Ockels Flies His Kite
How many airplanes need to hit a tether or kite to bring the method to an end? How many up and down cycles will the tether survive? How many lightening strikes on a wet tether must occur before the tether breaks? In short, this method has no hope of being practical. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Google is putting $5 million into this. If they have that kind of money for kites they should invest in cold fusion. I still think laddermill kites are impractical. What are they going to use for the tether? What can stand up to 100 MW?!? Using kites as auxiliary sails on large ships is a good idea. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ockels Flies His Kite
Perhaps, however the billions saved by one space elevator are more attractive than the few millions saved by all the kites that could be put up without being a hazard. Besides, a space elevator stays in one place. A lot of kites constantly moving up and down and changing position would be a real problem for airplanes. Ed Terry Blanton wrote: Certainly, no less practical than a space elevator. Terry On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many airplanes need to hit a tether or kite to bring the method to an end? How many up and down cycles will the tether survive? How many lightening strikes on a wet tether must occur before the tether breaks? In short, this method has no hope of being practical. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Google is putting $5 million into this. If they have that kind of money for kites they should invest in cold fusion. I still think laddermill kites are impractical. What are they going to use for the tether? What can stand up to 100 MW?!? Using kites as auxiliary sails on large ships is a good idea. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT] New Yorker Reports Cheney Sought Casus Belli with Iran
A better question is, How do people who make such stupid policy keep a clearance? Thank heavens some people are willing to make these policies known. Our leaders seem to have lost their rationality in an attempt to get reelected. They will agree to anything as long as it doesn't make them look soft on national defense. Meanwhile, the uneducated public believes the talking points because the background is not provided unless someone spills the beans. Ed Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh How do they get people with clearances to be so open? Terry
Re: [Vo]:THz laser at ICCF-14
When evaluating the laser result, you need to take into account that it does not work unless the cathode is coated with gold. Consequently, the effect depends on how deep the laser energy goes. Does the effect have any relationship at all to the properties of palladium? Ed Jones Beene wrote: WRT - the Letts, Cravens, Haglestein Laser experiment They finally tried the wavelengths Peter suggested (8, 15, 20 THz) and the effect now turns on reproducibly. Not only does the heat appear when the laser is applied... Most interesting result, but darn, wonder if they tried 30 THz ? or was I was off a bit in an earlier prediction ? In 2004, in a posting here (you heard it first on Vo;-) I predicted that triple coherency could possibly occur in a stabilized LENR cell using a terahertz laser at 3-30 THz and that was based on an assumed size of the exciton in a Pd matrix. Apparently it is larger on average than I was assuming (if the lower frequecy works better ... but at least I did have the range covered (3-30 THz) ;-) Triple coherency is what happens (hypothetically) when one forces the three different waveforms of mass/energy which are evident in this kind of experiment: 1) photons 2) electrons (leptons) 3) phonons into a mutual wave coherency http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg01387.html
Re: [Vo]:The emphasis is on energy in this year's campaign
I hope you are right, Jed. But I can hear the response to any request. I agree, evidence for CF exists, But you have no idea why or how it works and you can't make it work very often. We have an energy problem we need to solve right now using methods that are better understood. So come back when you have more understanding. How would you respond to such a rejection? How would you propose a laboratory start the process of understanding the effect. Several efforts are underway and have had periodic success. Nevertheless, they are not even close to a useful explanation that can be believed by normal science. Until someone can show how the effect can be made to occur every time on demand, I don't think we can get much public funding. Meanwhile, slow progress is being made using private funding. This is the right approach and will eventually provide the information demanded by public funding agencies. Ed On Aug 29, 2008, at 8:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Every second speaker at the Democratic National Convention talked about energy and plug-in hybrid automobiles. I expect the Republicans will also have a lot to say about energy. With all this attention being paid to energy, whichever party wins we ought to be able to get a little funding for cold fusion from the next administration. If we cannot make any headway under these circumstances we are doing something wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The emphasis is on energy in this year's campaign
On Aug 29, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: I hope you are right, Jed. But I can hear the response to any request. I agree, evidence for CF exists, But you have no idea why or how it works and you can't make it work very often. We have an energy problem we need to solve right now using methods that are better understood. So come back when you have more understanding. How would you respond to such a rejection? I would ignore it and look for someone else who understands how science and research work. There are many unhelpful people. We need to ignore them and continue looking for enlightened people. Yes, but where do you find such people in the government? Until someone can show how the effect can be made to occur every time on demand, I don't think we can get much public funding. Meanwhile, slow progress is being made using private funding. Most funding for cold fusion is public, especially DARPA and the Navy in the U.S., and the Italian national nuclear laboratories. Yes, but this work is tightly focused on replication in the US. The Italian work as well as that done in Russia is broader. We need efforts that are designed to understand the process rather than just prove that it is real. I do not think it is necessary to make cold fusion occur every time on demand. I think that with the experiments we already have we could convince more people if only we presented the experiments and the data in a more convincing fashion to a wider audience. I believe that cold fusion researchers have often failed to take advantage of the opportunities they have been granted. A phenomenon can not be investigated unless it can be made to occur on demand. No one will put a large amount of money into an effect that is seldom observed. That is why the funding levels are small as they should be. This is the right approach and will eventually provide the information demanded by public funding agencies. We have public funding; we need more. We have often maligned the government in this business but actually it has done more for cold fusion than industry, universities or other institutions. True. However, most of this money was spent trying to learn whether the effect was real, not to understand the mechanism. As a result, the effect was shown to be real. We now need to understand the mechanism. This will take a lot of money. Unfortunately, money for such basic science in the US is hard to find. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT] DOM Vote
I wonder how many people turned McCain down before Gov. Palin's name came up? The ship is sinking with all aboard. Ed On Aug 29, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: The republicans have sealed the dirty old man vote. Gov. Palin at 20: And also the creationist vote, but they had that sewed up anyway. Gov. Palin supports teaching the controversy in the public schools. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT] DOM Vote
On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:57:30 -0600: Hi, [snip] I wonder how many people turned McCain down before Gov. Palin's name came up? The ship is sinking with all aboard. Ed Actually I thought it was a very shrewd choice. By choosing a woman he improves his chances of capturing the disaffected Hillary supporters. Frankly, I have a higher opinion of the female voter. Only the most ignorant would vote for McClain just because his choice of vice president is a woman. Most intelligent women supported Hillary because she had experience and a program, as well as being related to Bill. What does Palin have other than the right sex? Regards, Ed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:[OT] DOM Vote
Unfortunately, the personal qualities of the candidates or their religious views are not important to our basic living standards. Bush was chosen on the basis of such criteria and look what happened. If the people who vote on the basis of religious values do not start looking at the deeper issues, this country will continue to go down hill. The bad things that are happening now are not accidental and the “liberals” and the democrats have not caused them. They are caused by the basic philosophy of the present leaders. This attitude needs to be changed. McCain and Palin, although nice and sincere people, share these attitudes toward government. The attitude that has caused the trouble is the belief that the free enterprise system, if allowed to work without oversight, will produce the best result. The fact is that certain people in free enterprise system will try to take every advantage they can get at the expense of other people unless the system is regulated by rules that prevent such action. The most recent example is how the mortgage industry was corrupted by greed and self- interest. The Bush administration encouraged this action because everyone was appearing to get rich. It was obvious to any rational person that this could not continue, which was correct. Unfortunately, this was only one of many big and small disasters caused by their hands-off approach. This approach has failed. The ordinary citizen is loosing while the few are getting very rich. This is not what the founding fathers wanted. Obama may be inexperienced, but he sees the problem and has proposed solutions. This is more than be said for McCain et al. Ed On Aug 30, 2008, at 11:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:57:30 -0600: Hi, [snip] I wonder how many people turned McCain down before Gov. Palin's name came up? The ship is sinking with all aboard. It was a horse race before. I saw my friend switch from being decided for Obama, to giving McCain a second look when I told her about Governor Pailin. Ed Actually I thought it was a very shrewd choice. By choosing a woman he improves his chances of capturing the disaffected Hillary supporters. According to the pole results I heard, 20 - 30% of the Hillary voters were leaning to supporting McCain. Frankly, I have a higher opinion of the female voter. Only the most Bill. What does Palin have other than the right sex? Governor Pailin is the sort of leader that the Founding Father's had in mind. A person has a life (a business or profession) which they leave temporarily to lead the government. She has solid prolife credentials, and a demonstrated passion to root out governmental corruption and waste. President Bush has presided over a kleptoracy worthy of a third world dictatorship. Between John McCain's fiscal conservatism, and Sarah Pailin, this situation can be ameliorated. As for the evolution matter, what we intelligent design advocates ask to the opportunity to present our case to students. To wit, the living cell is a production facility. The definition of a P F, is that it takes that with you have, and changes it into that which you need or desire. In addition, it is self correcting. IMHO, both of these functions defy entropy. The appeals court decision in this matter needs legislative correction. Then there is the Fairness Doctrine, this Orwellian piece of legislation would destroy one of our rallying centers, talk radio. The radical left has taken control of the Democratic Party, IMHO, what you are witnessing is a repeat of 1972. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:[OT] DOM Vote
Hi Mike, Th problem is that the lessons are learned over and over again. We have already experienced what happens when regulation is not in place, yet the Bush administration, in their profound ignorance and greed, ignored the lessons. Of course a balance is needed. What we don't need is people who ignore history and remove regulation that worked. It is hard to tell whether this was done by Bush and his people because of ignorance or because they discovered they could get rich this way at the expense of everyone else. Now the issue is whether the American people can see through the sham to elect someone who intends to change the system. I fear the person who will support McCain and feel they made the right moral choice all the way to the poor house, or the person who believes the government should have little power while we all are ripped off by the growing power structure. Ed On Aug 31, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Mike Carrell wrote: Air travel safety is achieved by the analysis of crashes, which illustrate unintended design and operation defects. Economic policy matures by similar means. Aircraft designed for total safety will not fly. Commerce free of risk and greed will not function. The finger of greed points in every direction. From primitive barter to electronic commerce we must always seek a balance, making on-course corrections. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are immune. Both have lavish parties at their conventions, adroitly conforming to reforms passed by Congress. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] DOM Vote Unfortunately, the personal qualities of the candidates or their religious views are not important to our basic living standards. Bush was chosen on the basis of such criteria and look what happened. If the people who vote on the basis of religious values do not start looking at the deeper issues, this country will continue to go down hill. The bad things that are happening now are not accidental and the “liberals” and the democrats have not caused them. They are caused by the basic philosophy of the present leaders. This attitude needs to be changed. McCain and Palin, although nice and sincere people, share these attitudes toward government. The attitude that has caused the trouble is the belief that the free enterprise system, if allowed to work without oversight, will produce the best result. The fact is that certain people in free enterprise system will try to take every advantage they can get at the expense of other people unless the system is regulated by rules that prevent such action. The most recent example is how the mortgage industry was corrupted by greed and self- interest. The Bush administration encouraged this action because everyone was appearing to get rich. It was obvious to any rational person that this could not continue, which was correct. Unfortunately, this was only one of many big and small disasters caused by their hands-off approach. This approach has failed. The ordinary citizen is loosing while the few are getting very rich. This is not what the founding fathers wanted. Obama may be inexperienced, but he sees the problem and has proposed solutions. This is more than be said for McCain et al. Ed On Aug 30, 2008, at 11:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 29 Aug 2008 :57:30 -0600: Hi, [snip] I wonder how many people turned McCain down before Gov. Palin's name came up? The ship is sinking with all aboard. It was a horse race before. I saw my friend switch from being decided for Obama, to giving McCain a second look when I told her about Governor Pailin. Ed Actually I thought it was a very shrewd choice. By choosing a woman he improves his chances of capturing the disaffected Hillary supporters. According to the pole results I heard, 20 - 30% of the Hillary voters were leaning to supporting McCain. Frankly, I have a higher opinion of the female voter. Only the most Bill. What does Palin have other than the right sex? Governor Pailin is the sort of leader that the Founding Father's had in mind. A person has a life (a business or profession) which they leave temporarily to lead the government. She has solid prolife credentials, and a demonstrated passion to root out governmental corruption and waste. President Bush has presided over a kleptoracy worthy of a third world dictatorship. Between John McCain's fiscal conservatism, and Sarah Pailin, this situation can be ameliorated. As for the evolution matter, what we intelligent design advocates ask to the opportunity to present our case to students. To wit, the living cell is a production facility
Re: [Vo]:Nature India on Bubble Fusion
I agree with both Horace and Jed, this is serious and should be confronted at every level possible. The initial conflict appeared to be motivated by simple professional jealousy. Now the conflict has gotten more serious because a major university cannot set proper standards for its faculty. The issue of whether the science is real or not has now become much less important. Nevertheless, the fact that apparently good science led to this sorry state points to several serious deficiencies in the system used to evaluate science. Except for popular outrage, no agency seems to be able to intervene in this mess to reach a fair solution. Ed On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Sep 1, 2008, at 5:39 PM, R C Macaulay wrote: Hold it down to a roar Jed, we're all grown boys and girls and understand the full component of racism. I just felt the subject was not a subject for the forum. If racism is to be discussed. they can create a proper forum to address the specific issue. Sufficent to limit it to corruption and academic suppression.. whew! ain't that enough ... This is not merely a case of blatant racism, it is a case of racism affecting scientists and the science itself. It is a case of destruction of academic freedom and integrity, and it is an issue which has reached the highest levels of scientific journalism. This case is scientific infamy at an international level, and thus far apparently sanctioned by a major academic institution. This case also relates directly to alternative means of creating fusion, bubble fusion in fact, the very topic that initiated the list. It strikes me as difficult to come up with a more relevant topic for this list. It is clearly far more important and relevant than the general politics and religion issues that repeatedly creep into discussion here. In any case, racism of this kind should not be laughed off, especially institutionalized racism. I agree with Jed. Racism should be confronted. It is not a joke. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: snip If flat earth is too extreme, even for biblical literalists; but creationism is OK to teach, then I would like to ask the various candidates who might support 'creationism,' although there is only one of that persuation, where do you draw the line between biblical truth and metaphor? Is that question unfair? This a very good question. The bigger question is why anyone needs to even ask such a question. A rational society of thinking individuals would never confuse reality with faith. We all know that many people are not rational. The problem is to determine what fraction of the population is not rational. I submit that the answer to such a question would help reveal the fraction of rational individuals that are present in a society. Apparently, according to my analysis, the level of rationally is decreasing in the US. This conclusion is not only consistent with this criteria, but it is supported by the behavior of the stock market and the government. The bigger question, is what does an individual do to protect themselves from this growing irrationally? Ed Jones
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:32:23 -0600: Hi, [snip] behavior of the stock market and the government. The bigger question, is what does an individual do to protect themselves from this growing irrationally? [snip] Rational behaviour is a luxury. Irrational behaviour based upon fear is a part of human basic instinct. Fear arises when people perceive their existence threatened. The cure is to ensure that it is less threatened, by improving the quality of life. This will flow automatically from the introduction of a sustainable economy based upon sustainable energy. That's where we come in. I agree, Robin. The problem is having an irrational society make rational choices that would reduce the fear. This same problem confronts every individual in a society. The greater the fear a person has, the greater the chance they will make an irrational decision. I think Obama is right when he observed that in the time of fear, people tend to turn to religion, i. e. God, to protect them. While this can be beneficial in reducing fear, a problem is created when the power structure uses this attitude to gain more power. That is what got Bush elected the second time and is being used to get McCain elected this time. In other words, the greater the faith in God, the greater the susceptibility to manipulation. This is where the level of rationally becomes important. If the level of faith in religion is high, the possibility of an irrational decision is high. Unfortunately, I don't think we will solve the energy problem in time to reduce the fear to sustainable levels. Too many people are benefiting from the fear and too many people are out to generate more. Ed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Bubblegate: Send Lawyers, Affidavits and Money
A graduate student at a university would be crazy to write a letter damning a member of the faculty unless he was sure of being protect. This would be like a private in the army publicly criticizing his commanding officer in a letter. This simply is not done. The fact that such a letter was written, signed or not, adds more suspicion that things are not right at Purdue. Ed On Sep 3, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/BubblegateSendLawyersAffidavitsMoney.htm Excerpt: ...On the other hand, The New York Times published a document allegedly written and signed by Adam Butt, a graduate student at Purdue. It was perhaps the most damning evidence, which caused great harm to Taleyarkhan's reputation. This alleged statement also formed the basis of Taleyarkhan's admonishment by Congress and punishment by Purdue. Here is the version obtained by New Energy Times. Note that there is no signature, no notary stamp, no statement about a willingness to testify under oath, and no statement that the author wrote it completely willingly and without influence and duress from any other individuals. However, something about the text is peculiar. The first three paragraphs are written in third person. The remaining text is written in first person. Here is the version located on the New York Times Web site. It is the same as the version obtained by New Energy Times - the same unsigned document. Yet on May 11, 2007, Chang wrote in The New York Times that Mr. Butt signed a statement... [Article continues] http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/BubblegateSendLawyersAffidavitsMoney.htm Steven B. Krivit Editor, New Energy Times Executive Director, New Energy Institute Inc. NEW ENERGY TIMES Original reporting on leading-edge energy research and technologies 369-B Third Street, Suite 556 San Rafael, California, USA 94901 www.newenergytimes.com Office Phone: (310) 470-8189
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we try to do something, it will result in economic damage. Actually, if we invest in alternate energy, this will create jobs and keep more money in the economy. In the video, the choice of spending a lot of money to develop the atom bomb was used as an example of having to make a costly decision based on a lack knowledge about what the Germans were doing. Actually, by developing the atom bomb we also created nuclear power for energy production, which added greatly to the economy. As a result the initial investment was trivial compared to the eventual advantage. The same would be true of our response to global warming. In short, we actually have nothing to lose. Why can't this idea be accepted? Ed Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: There will be a new book on global warming coming out, provisionally titled What's the Worst that could Happen?. It's written by wonderingmind42 AKA Greg Craven, a school science teacher from Oregon. He did a 10 minute Youtube video that went viral called How it all ends http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg. He got a a book contract on the strength of this and there has been an online collaborative effort (in which I have had a small part) to hack out a book version in 3.5 months. He just succeeded a couple of days ago. His angle was to explore a risk analysis method for Joe Schmoe to use for deciding what to do about potential climate change when the science isn't certain. It's pretty entertaining... Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Yes Robin, but why do the nonoil barons keep making this point? Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:08:25 -0600: Hi, [snip] The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we try to do something, it will result in economic damage. [snip] It will result in economic damageto the oil barons. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Good point Robin. Perhaps we should turn this around and use this as a criteria of who is influenced by the oil barons. For example, Obama made the point that development of alternate energy would put people to work. Using this criteria, Obama is apparently not under their influence. Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:37:43 -0600: Hi, [snip] Yes Robin, but why do the nonoil barons keep making this point? Are you really sure that those who keep making the point are not influenced by the oil barons? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
Rick, you don't need computer models. All you need is the fact ice is melting everywhere. In addition, the plants are moving up the mountains to cooler regions. The average temperature is going up. This has nothing to do with liberals or socialists. You can bitch all you want about government control but this will not change reality. Even if a cooling cycle is in the works, no harm is produced by putting as much effort into alternative energy as possible. It creates jobs and it gives us more energy in the long run. This is a win-win situation. The political battles can be fought over other issues, such as why wealth is moving out of the middle class and into fewer and fewer hands. As for government control, you well know that without control, society simply cannot function. Without control, the rich, the strong and the ruthless dominate everyone else. Total freedom has never lasted long in history. The only issue is how much control is required and where is it applied. The debate between liberals, conservatives, and now the religious right involves just what is to be controlled. As for voting, the closer a society is to a true democracy, the more likely it is to fail. This happens because the average person wants to receive as much as possible from the government and give as little as possible. Eventually, in their ignorance, the average person supports a government that bankrupts the country. We are now on this path. I suggest you pick you battles more carefully because unless we take a different path, you and many other people will pay a very dear price. Ed On Sep 4, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: Ed - My information that the computer models can't accurately track reality? Chaos theory, mostly, and practical experience and observation too, validated by numerous people who know and use these systems and are honest about how they work. You can't expect a recursive computer model to accurately predict for you the outcomes of a planetary weather/ocean system. Even if you had precise data on every cubic centimeter of sky, ocean, and land surface, and the data weren't linked to geological, cosmic, and other influences from outside your system (they are of course), you still wouldn't get much more model accuracy than the wild guesses and massaged outcomes you have now. That's one. Another is bad data collection and analysis, documented extensively. That's two, but it's really moot because of one. Three: a false problem is being substituted for real ones, used as cover to impose socialist-style government control on a population that otherwise repeatedly rejects such attempts when allowed to express their choice at the ballot box. Liberals and socialists are inherently totalitarian and have a hard time with that darn voting thing, much preferring to rule the masses by direct edict. So they use false issues and the courts, if not force, to get what can't be obtained democratically. It's #3 that does make me a bit angry. To answer your question, the advantage of being angry about someone trying to steal your liberty on false pretense (or otherwise)is that you are inspired to act to stop it. One small example of such loss is the compact fluorescent bulb. Mercury leaching out of landfills into the groundwater is a Bad Thing. It is a fact. Yet their use is being *legislated* (incandescents banned - loss of liberty to choose) because they may reduce the emission of a harmless gas! The only real advantage is saving a small amount of oil, but the cost is real pollution vs. imaginary AGW. That is wrong. Food as energy (ethanol) is wrong. Failure to properly and safely exploit our own existing energy resources for those same false reasons is wrong. Yes we need to get off foreign oil in the very short term and eventually all oil as a fuel source. I'm in the tank for that. But we cannot afford to waste any more precious time and resources acting on the basis that AGW exists, much less do we have any predictive ability or practical capacity to mitigate such changes in any way. Notice where the posts trailed off about slowing a harmful cooling cycle? Good at a bad time, or maybe bad at good, but ... ft. The point is even if we were granted the power to begin directly manipulating the weather, we have no clue as to how to wield that power to obtain the desired result. So, what is the point of fighting this process? In addition to the practical matters above, our integrity and more. It's wrong to direct public policy based on a lie. For instance, I think most people here, including perhaps yourself Ed, feel that certain policies arising from the war on terror or at least the Iraq invasion are based on a lie. How does that make you feel? Sad? Angry? There you go. Let's use truth and good science this time. - Rick -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
And you miss my point, Rick. My point is that it does not matter if the warming is caused by mankind or not. We all benefit if we develop alternative energy. If this means supporting ALGore, then suck it up and get on with life. Ed On Sep 5, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote: Jed - What you describe below circumvents, for a few special practical cases, the fundamental point I made about the use of models. In your examples, some components can contain quite a bit of 'inertia' of one form or another (often as historical and statistical: When we see A happening here, then 90% of the time B will follow in about C time and last for D time. Don't know why, but it just does.) Those situations can be exploited to make useful long term predictions in certain realms, even when the actual real world physical drivers are not well known, measurable, or even, as I have said, calculable. Are you missing my point entirely? On purpose? Both you and Ed essentially say that I refuse to look at melting ice, and you imply that I'm like the CF skeptic who lets papers placed in his hand fall to the floor. My argument is not that there is no such thing as climate change. The argument is whether there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. Scientists who are experts in the field also make this observation and have published it. Your attempt to mischaracterize my statements as the personal opinion of myself alone as a diminished instant expert is not only very far off the mark, it's surprising from one who seems to share, as observed from years of reading your postings on this forum, my view that such rhetorical tactics are a poor substitute for an honest and fair minded investigation and exchange on known facts. I have personal exposure and experience in computer science and am capable, just as you claim Gore is, of reading and understanding the papers of scientists in the field. If this were CF/LENR I'd be saying sure I see all that excess energy from some obviously extraordinary and non-chemical source, but I think it's not caused by this particular mechanism you have proposed. Instead it is from some other for which there is better evidence. Not a great analogy, but sorta. I don't think anyone has a real solid track yet on what is behind the various CF/LENR results. Oh wait, that's what I'm saying about the cause of the warming we see. Ok, maybe not so bad after all. - Rick -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:26 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Sunspotless Rick Monteverde wrote: If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work. You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work for a very brief time before their results degrade to useless noise, so they are only good before they reach that point . . . Local weather forecasts degrade because they are detailed. Nowadays they can make a weather forecast months or even years ahead for large areas such as the entire Pacific Ocean, or the trends for the whole of Japan for several months, which is now predicted with astonishing accuracy on NHK. My point is that if experts did not understand the detailed physics of the atmosphere, they could not make detailed weather forecasts at all. That was the case until the 1960s. Even after satellite photos became available weather forecasts were not reliable until the physics and computational models were improved. Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the global warming experts predictions have come true in the world is indisputably growing hotter rapidly, as Ed pointed out. You do not need a computer to see that. Just look at melting ice, the level of the Inland Sea, or the average temperature of the Pacific ocean water and atmosphere surrounding Japan. Local temperatures vary of course but over large landmasses and extended periods they have been going up. To deny such first-principal observations is to go traipsing off into the cloud-cuckoo land of the cold fusion deniers who do not believe that thermocouples and thermometers work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
While all you say very well Nick is true and reasonable. Nevertheless the basic issue is not addressed. The basic issue is that burning fossil fuels is harmful for several important reasons, only one of which is global warming. Therefore, we should make every effort to phase out this source of energy. This will not be done unless the public can understand the reason. The most easily understood reason is the effect on the climate. Therefore, what is the point of fighting this argument no matter how distorted its presentation might be? Besides, the debunkers might be wrong, a fact that would not become obvious until it is too late. Is it not wise and prudent to use every argument that can be found to get people to support alternate energy, including climate change? In contrast, I would expect people who get financial benefit from the fossil fuel industry to fight any argument for eliminating the use of oil and coal. Consequently, it is easy to see where the self-interest lies by the argument each person uses. Ed On Sep 7, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: Just to try to level the field wherein all the argument takes place over AGW. Richard Lindzen is probably the most respected of the atmospheric scientists who are sceptical about catastrophic climate change. He has been the AGW sceptical scientist-of-choice on many TV programmes and writes leading articles for newspapers such as the Wall St journal. From the Wall St Journal that Terry Blanton linked to http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Lindzen said a variation of the position he has held for many years (early 90's). BTW, this is not cherry picked - it represents his frequently expressed opinion. To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. I hope that Vorts are sufficiently literate to understand exactly what he is saying here... The most serious sceptic is admitting that 1) there has been warming 2) that CO2 has increased in parallel with that warming 3) that CO2 should contribute to future warming. Virtually all of the AGW denier propaganda and deliberately deceptive claims can therefore be thrown in the bin - their main sceptical scientist does not back them up. Throw in the bin the urban heat islands, the increased solar irradiance, the so called debunked hockey stick (the debunking has since been debunked), the warming on other planets and all of the other, often mutually contradictory, theories and logical falsehoods that the denier industry propagates ad nauseam, despite them having been answered time and time again - they just keep on endlessly resurrecting them, like the killer in a Freddy/Jason slasher movie, as long as there are new gullible people to swallow it. Lindzen's argument is that he does not agree with the IPCC projections because he comes up with a different, lower, figure for the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gas forcing and feedbacks. He tacitly admits that there has been warming, that there will be further warming and that we are responsible for some of it. Where he differs from the majority is that his lower sensitivity figure leads to predictions of lower temperature rise and much lower probability of excess positive feedbacks adding to the problem. He states that there will be further warming and we will be responsible for it but it won't be a problem. He is effectively claiming that, according to his research, assumptions, projections and logic that in a similar situation, Dirty Harry usually has shot 6 bullets, or the last bullet always misfires, so challenging him won't be dangerous. The IPCC models say that their sensitivity figure, projections, assumptions and logic etc show that Dirty Harry will almost certainly have bullets left and that it will be at least risky to definitely dangerous to challenge him. A fundamental problem is that the actual sensitivity figure to various inputs CANNOT be known with certainty without a lot of experimental climate science, which I have pointed out, over the years, would need a time machine, as we only have one test tube to do the experiment in. It comes down to this - both the sceptical scientists and the far greater number
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
On Sep 7, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: snip So, when the Arctic Ocean is free of ice and the last polar bear is stuffed and placed in a museum, it will *STILL* not be obvious that humans had any effect at all on the climate: The apparent connection will be written off as coincidence, and the models dismissed as fallacious, and the additional carbon dioxide and methane dumped into the atmosphere by humans dismissed as insignificant (never mind the amount, 0.4% was insignificant, so 35% must be insignificant too, and presumably 75% will be just as insignificant). Ed, you cannot convince a true believer of anything which is contrary to his faith. While I agree completely with you Stephen, the argument for climate change can still be used to the advantage of mankind in spite of the true believers. In fact, true believers on both sides of this or any argument cannot be educated. Only people who can look at reality with an open mind can see the best path. Unfortunately, the number of such people in the US seems to be dwindling. For this reason, open minded people need to unite to fix the problems the true believers have created. In fact, that is the basic issue behind the current election in the US. We have been ruled by true believers for 8 years with disastrous consequences. Now we have the choice between another true believer or an open minded person. Everything else about the candidates is irrelevant. Ed
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
I hate to get involved in this cat fight, but when thermite is used, it melts only a very local region which is blown away from the area by the reaction. A molten pool of iron would not be produced. I suspect, as others have suggested, that the huge energy of the collapse would melt the iron, which would run to the lowest point where a pool would form. This would make it look as if a lot more molten iron were present than was actually the case. As for aluminum, the airplane was made of aluminum and aluminum is present in small amounts in building material either as the metal or Al2O3. Therefore, I see nothing unusual about finding aluminum. As for the other speculations, I agree with Jed. If any of the buildings were brought down on purpose, this knowledge would get out. This is too big to keep secret. However, I believe the administration knew this was going to happen but they did not expect the buildings to collapse. They wanted an excuse to ramp up the war on terror but they did not want such a loss. This any many other acts that need to be investigated makes a win by Obama very important. Ed Ed On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Jed Rothwell You mean NIST and the NYFD and every other fire department and safety agency on earth has chosen to ignore that. No doubt they are all part of a grand conspiracy. Get used to it. Huh? Every other fire department on earth? Get real - better yet get some facts together besides NIST told me so. Of course, no fire department, certainly not the NYFD, are part of any grand conspiracy - unless getting at the truth scientifically is now to be labeled as conspiracy. If you are not consulted, then how can you object? Is that you definition of conspiracy (getting at the truth scientifically, in spite of a past flawed report) ? Funny, since this remark is coming from the prime (and eloquent) defender of a technology (LENR) which is also facing similar disproportionate criticism from a stone wall of experts who are alighned against it, and who (those experts) are also failing to look at a mountain of evidence pointing the other way. Even the mayor Rudy Giuliani said weeks after the incident about the NYFD They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days. [direct quote] Of course, no one seriously believes that Rudy went out an measured this temperature, but he should have been getting accurate information from the fire chiefs - and this was long before an official report came out. By the way, and speaking of demolition experts - lets go to the very best CDI. CDI stands for Controlled Demolition Inc., the world-renowned Baltimore company that uses thermite explosives to implode structures such as WTC7. There is no more hands-on, and knowledgeable company in the trade. Company-founder Jack Loizeaux and his sons have handled many high profile demolitions including the Murrah Building in Okla. City. Mark Loizeaux, now president of CDI and one of the contractors in the clean-up is quoted in newspaper accounts and television interviews in the weeks following 9/11 as seeing molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts three, four, and five weeks after the attack. Is this part of a conspiracy? No - absolutely not. It is the reporting of fact by an observer who had been superbly competent to report on what he has seen directly - unlike the bureaucrats at NIST... ... who seldom go out of the office except to show their bizarre video simulations which do not consider anything below the eight floor - and then to dodge questions about why they did not consider very basic things, like molten steel or like interviewing Mark Loizeaux - years later about why he might have changed some details of his original interview, AFTER the first report came out . http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/index.html When steel beams were pulled from these glowing pools, and there are videos showing this - many of them still had dripping metal coming from fairly straight cut marks. Was some worker down there in a 2000 degree inferno with a torch? Were these videos faked ? If so why didn't NIST say they are fake videos? Here is a website put up and maintained by those same NYFD firefighters who Rothwell wants us to believe are going along and supporting the flawed NIST official report: http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948#post2948 I think someone in the next administration should poll the surviving firemen and clean-up crews. Know what, I will make a large bet that the great majority will say that there was moltent steel under ground zero for weeks - and even that many will say that there was clear evidence of demolition. Did NIST interview a single firefighter or cleanup crewman? Nope ... sorry
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed - You could be right - but the bottom line on it is that all we need, all we have ever needed, is simply a thorough investigation which addresses all the issues. Why were we not afforded that for the millions already spent? I suspect two reasons. First, the administration has grown increasingly incompetent under Bush. Therefore even an honest investigation would be handled poorly. Second, because, as I suspect, important people in the administration had a hand in the event, efforts were made to keep this information out of the report. This would require the report to look poor on purpose so as to create an issue that could distract from the real issue. In addition, certain events would have to be ignored so that the logical conclusions would not be obvious. We can see how this event is being controlled simply by watching the history. Evidence indicating a demolition is emphasized. This idea is so unrealistic that it focuses attention and argument, as we see on Vortex. Meanwhile the real crime is completely overlooked. The real crime is the failure to stop the event even though prior knowledge was available. These people may be incompetent at running the country but they are very good at protecting themselves. Ed If you have the time ... Please comment on the following criticism - just in from a Dr. John D. Wyndham, PhD (physics), who wrote a thought provoking letter to NIST in response to its second whitewash ...oops... report. http://www.finelytunedfuture.com/2008/09/physics-phds-response-to-nist.html
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Of course it would be incorrect if the demolition company wanted to make molten iron. However, they generally try to use as little of the expensive thermite as possible to get the job done. When a person hears an explosion, as people claimed to do, this means that things were blown away. You can't have it both ways. If thermite were used to bring the buildings down, it did not produce the molten iron. The molten iron had to result from something else. If it resulted from something else, most of the support for the thermite claim disappears. You can see how easy it is to put out a few facts and have people believe they have meaning. Mention thermite to the average person and they imagine a big part of the building being melted. Detect a little aluminum and they conclude thermite was used. It is so easy to fool people, it is no wonder so much delusion exists. Ed On Sep 8, 2008, at 12:46 PM, leaking pen wrote: Considering that I use thermite to MAKE molten pools of metal, as part of a glass sculpture technique, that would be incorrect. The reaction in large amounts doesnt blow things away. Thats standard aluminum / iron (II) oxide thermite. On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate to get involved in this cat fight, but when thermite is used, it melts only a very local region which is blown away from the area by the reaction. A molten pool of iron would not be produced. I suspect, as others have suggested, that the huge energy of the collapse would melt the iron, which would run to the lowest point where a pool would form. This would make it look as if a lot more molten iron were present than was actually the case. As for aluminum, the airplane was made of aluminum and aluminum is present in small amounts in building material either as the metal or Al2O3. Therefore, I see nothing unusual about finding aluminum. As for the other speculations, I agree with Jed. If any of the buildings were brought down on purpose, this knowledge would get out. This is too big to keep secret. However, I believe the administration knew this was going to happen but they did not expect the buildings to collapse. They wanted an excuse to ramp up the war on terror but they did not want such a loss. This any many other acts that need to be investigated makes a win by Obama very important. Ed Ed On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Jed Rothwell You mean NIST and the NYFD and every other fire department and safety agency on earth has chosen to ignore that. No doubt they are all part of a grand conspiracy. Get used to it. Huh? Every other fire department on earth? Get real - better yet get some facts together besides NIST told me so. Of course, no fire department, certainly not the NYFD, are part of any grand conspiracy - unless getting at the truth scientifically is now to be labeled as conspiracy. If you are not consulted, then how can you object? Is that you definition of conspiracy (getting at the truth scientifically, in spite of a past flawed report) ? Funny, since this remark is coming from the prime (and eloquent) defender of a technology (LENR) which is also facing similar disproportionate criticism from a stone wall of experts who are alighned against it, and who (those experts) are also failing to look at a mountain of evidence pointing the other way. Even the mayor Rudy Giuliani said weeks after the incident about the NYFD They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days. [direct quote] Of course, no one seriously believes that Rudy went out an measured this temperature, but he should have been getting accurate information from the fire chiefs - and this was long before an official report came out. By the way, and speaking of demolition experts - lets go to the very best CDI. CDI stands for Controlled Demolition Inc., the world-renowned Baltimore company that uses thermite explosives to implode structures such as WTC7. There is no more hands-on, and knowledgeable company in the trade. Company-founder Jack Loizeaux and his sons have handled many high profile demolitions including the Murrah Building in Okla. City. Mark Loizeaux, now president of CDI and one of the contractors in the clean-up is quoted in newspaper accounts and television interviews in the weeks following 9/11 as seeing molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts three, four, and five weeks after the attack. Is this part of a conspiracy? No - absolutely not. It is the reporting of fact by an observer who had been superbly competent to report on what he has seen directly - unlike the bureaucrats at NIST... ... who seldom go out of the office except to show their bizarre video simulations which do not consider anything below the eight floor - and then to dodge questions
Re: [Vo]:HAVA: Game over?
You all would fail at solving murder mysteries. Consider the facts: 1. Diebold makes ATMs, which are secure. Therefore, they know how to do a good job. 2. Diebold is owned by people who are strong supporters of the Republican party. Therefore they have a self interest in gaming the system. 3. In the last election, many examples of miscounts favoring the Republican candidates were discovered. 4. Only a complete fool or a person looking for an advantage would design a voting machine that did not have a paper trail. The Diebold company has never shown any signs in the past of being run by fools. What more evidence do you need? Ed On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: By the way, Diebold is in the ATM business. Readers here did not know that would miss my point. I am sure there are plenty of programmers at Diebold who know how to do secure touch-screen transaction processing. It is an old, long established company. You can bet your boots that no Russian hacker can break into a Diebold ATM, despite what you see in thriller movies. Here is a 2007 tech article describing some of the problems. This should keep you awake a night: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/58572.html Rick said, funny that technophiles like us would object to these the way we do. I guess it's because we know easily computer systems can often be defeated even when they're touted as being rock solid. As I see it, technophiles are used to working with buggy first-gen or Beta-release computer systems. So we know there is a lot of crummy stuff out there. Normally it does not matter. We take it in stride. For example, I got a first-gen television DVR. It used to go out to lunch in the middle of program, spontaneously erase all files, and so on. I figured it's just a television program so who cares? Hey, it is better than no DVR. You expect unreliable software in a cheap gadget. You DO NOT expect it in an ATM, a cash register system or a voting machine!!! Such things are supposed to be held to much stricter standards. If Diebold had released an ATM with the problems their voting machines have, they would have been buried under lawsuits and driven out of business in no time. Apparently, Americans are much more concerned about the security of their cash than their democracy. (Plus, as I said, the DP people at banks understand computers and computer security, whereas election officials do not have a clue.) Diebold just did not bother to do a professional job on their voting machines. As I said, my impression is that they hired some college kids and gave them a couple months to throw something together, running under with Windows CE (pronounced Wince). I consider Wince the second worst version of that operating system -- Win ME took the prize for unreliability. Either they threw it together carelessly or they deliberately made the machines full of holes in order to steal elections, if you believe the conspiracy theorists. It hardly matters to me. The effect is the same. Culpability seems the same to me, although I suppose the law would come down harder on someone who did this deliberately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook
This book is not properly described. Actually, it is collection of papers given at an ACS meeting. I'm glad to see it is available for $175. The ACS wanted $400 to sell me 100 preprints of only my contribution. Ed On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Chemistry/NuclearChemistry/?view=usaci=9780841269668
Re: [Vo]:HAVA: Game over?
Great John, now if you can convince the fools who buy systems for the voting public to use your method, we might be saved from a disaster in November. Ed On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:32 PM, John Berry wrote: I don't have time to go into it at this moment but I believe I have found a way to have online voting secure and cheat proof if anyone is curious, it's not really hard. On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You all would fail at solving murder mysteries. Consider the facts: 1. Diebold makes ATMs, which are secure. Therefore, they know how to do a good job. 2. Diebold is owned by people who are strong supporters of the Republican party. Therefore they have a self interest in gaming the system. 3. In the last election, many examples of miscounts favoring the Republican candidates were discovered. 4. Only a complete fool or a person looking for an advantage would design a voting machine that did not have a paper trail. The Diebold company has never shown any signs in the past of being run by fools. What more evidence do you need? Ed On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: By the way, Diebold is in the ATM business. Readers here did not know that would miss my point. I am sure there are plenty of programmers at Diebold who know how to do secure touch-screen transaction processing. It is an old, long established company. You can bet your boots that no Russian hacker can break into a Diebold ATM, despite what you see in thriller movies. Here is a 2007 tech article describing some of the problems. This should keep you awake a night: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/58572.html Rick said, funny that technophiles like us would object to these the way we do. I guess it's because we know easily computer systems can often be defeated even when they're touted as being rock solid. As I see it, technophiles are used to working with buggy first-gen or Beta-release computer systems. So we know there is a lot of crummy stuff out there. Normally it does not matter. We take it in stride. For example, I got a first-gen television DVR. It used to go out to lunch in the middle of program, spontaneously erase all files, and so on. I figured it's just a television program so who cares? Hey, it is better than no DVR. You expect unreliable software in a cheap gadget. You DO NOT expect it in an ATM, a cash register system or a voting machine!!! Such things are supposed to be held to much stricter standards. If Diebold had released an ATM with the problems their voting machines have, they would have been buried under lawsuits and driven out of business in no time. Apparently, Americans are much more concerned about the security of their cash than their democracy. (Plus, as I said, the DP people at banks understand computers and computer security, whereas election officials do not have a clue.) Diebold just did not bother to do a professional job on their voting machines. As I said, my impression is that they hired some college kids and gave them a couple months to throw something together, running under with Windows CE (pronounced Wince). I consider Wince the second worst version of that operating system -- Win ME took the prize for unreliability. Either they threw it together carelessly or they deliberately made the machines full of holes in order to steal elections, if you believe the conspiracy theorists. It hardly matters to me. The effect is the same. Culpability seems the same to me, although I suppose the law would come down harder on someone who did this deliberately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Storms paper
Our belief is that a cluster of deuterons forms. Occasionally two members of the cluster fuse. The energy is then proportioned between the resulting alpha, which has too little energy to be detected, and the members of the cluster. The amount of energy each member receives depends on how many deuterons were in that cluster. You should read the entire discussion. Ed On Sep 13, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Question for Ed: Conclusion: the particles are deuterons with energy peaks having various values between 0.5 and 3 MeV. IF the high energy particles are deuterons - then where is the nuclear reaction? Storms, E. and B. Scanlan. Detection of Radiation Emitted from LENR. in ICCF-14 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEdetectiono.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists Flock to Darwin Image
Yes, it is crazy. Such events are a sanity test of the people reacting. Insanity and delusion are real pathologies of the mind that are frequently ignored when such events are interpreted. People want to believe so badly in magic that they will see whatever supports this need. At this point, they leave the real world and enter the world of delusion, which is one of the components of what is called insanity. This event involving Darwin is unusual because it does not involve God and religion. It shows one again that delusions can occur in other forms besides the common ones. Ed On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:01 AM, David Jonsson wrote: On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits, said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. Seems crazy. To treat Darwin that way would make him a personality. Darwin's view on evolution is impersonal. David -- David Jonsson Sweden phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists Flock to Darwin Image
Yes, I understand your point and I agree. Not just Buddha is worshiped but Christ and many of the saints as well. This is another human need, i.e. to identify with the person rather than with the idea. Unfortunately, this creates great trouble when the identification is with the personality of a leader rather than with his goals and policy. But, it looks like we are stuck with this characteristic. Ed On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:33 AM, David Jonsson wrote: I was referring to the inconsistency of making personal worship of an impersonalists. It is the same problem that classically, historically, and commonly are performed by those who worship Buddha as a person. Personal worship is in itself and performed to suitable personalities not bad at all. If the mother wants to free her kid from genetic misdesign she should likely worship a modern virus designer. They can make viruses who enter the body and alters DNA. The issue of health improvement with genetic therapies would need some personality to speed up. My honors to them! The problem is that such researchers usually do not want to become the subject of public attention. Impersonal improvement of DNA errors? No, not a chance. David On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it is crazy. Such events are a sanity test of the people reacting. Insanity and delusion are real pathologies of the mind that are frequently ignored when such events are interpreted. People want to believe so badly in magic that they will see whatever supports this need. At this point, they leave the real world and enter the world of delusion, which is one of the components of what is called insanity. This event involving Darwin is unusual because it does not involve God and religion. It shows one again that delusions can occur in other forms besides the common ones. Ed On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:01 AM, David Jonsson wrote: On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits, said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. Seems crazy. To treat Darwin that way would make him a personality. Darwin's view on evolution is impersonal. David -- David Jonsson Sweden phone callto:+46703000370 -- David Jonsson Sweden phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists Flock to Darwin Image
Ah so, now my faith in the unique role of religion in creating delusion is no long in jeopardy. :-) Ed On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene wrote: You guys are not paying attention to the source of this story- 'The Onion' is spoof-central. (Terry is teary-eyed LOL)
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists Flock to Darwin Image
Of course some ideas are bad. But if they are the focus, they can be rejected. In contrast, if the person is the focus, that person can have a rich assortment of ideas, some good and some bad. All are accepted regardless of their quality when the person is the focus. For example, people supported Bush because he was the kind of person with whom you would like to share a beer. Besides, he was a born again Christian. What harm could he do, they would ask. If his policies had been examined, we might have avoided the present mess. We are now presented with the same issue in the present election. The question is, will the voters have learned anything from their past mistake? Ed On Sep 14, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: I am not sure identification with an idea is necessarily better. Some ideas, for better or for worse, can encourage or impede certain kinds of research. The power of identity can be harnessed for good or bad. Harry on 14/9/08 11:55 am, Edmund Storms at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I understand your point and I agree. Not just Buddha is worshiped but Christ and many of the saints as well. This is another human need, i.e. to identify with the person rather than with the idea. Unfortunately, this creates great trouble when the identification is with the personality of a leader rather than with his goals and policy. But, it looks like we are stuck with this characteristic. Ed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
On Sep 17, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote: snip Had GM fired Lutz-the-Putz years ago, back when he was strongly dissing the Prius and spouting the gas-guzzler SUV spiel (epitomized in the Hummer, Suburban, Yukon, Escalade etc. legacy -- which is the Lutz legacy of 10 mpg) ... and instead had put a man of vision in his place - the Volt (which is a great leap forward) would already be seen on our roads as frequently as the Prius -- and GM would not be facing bankruptcy due to investment in these dinosaurs -- which they can hardly give away these days. Peter Principle at work. Well jones, you can see the basic financial philosophy at work here and in the mortgage industry. Yeas ago, the US moved from being based on rational long term investing to short term advantage to the stockholders of corporations. Lutz was simply playing by the rules. The Hummers et al. were selling well at that time. He could not risk making less money in the short term to gain advantage in the long term. That would have made Wall Street mad and he would have been kicked out then. Thanks to the way our system is now structured, we are destined to pass through these booms and busts as the results of short term decisions must be corrected by obvious consequences. Any attempt to change the system is considered unAmerican. This process will slowly weaken the US with respect to countries that take a longer view and eventually we will drop to the bottom of the pecking order. The present situation may be the start of such a slide. Unfortunately, the general public, which is the only force that can counter Wall Street, is too ignorant to have any effect. They will simply go down with the ship, as the passengers always do, while the captain and crew take to the life boats. Ed Jones
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Capitulation
Gold is up also because people are bailing out of paper money. The financial system is in the precollapse stage and the crew is going overboard. Ed On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Leapin' Lizards! The London palladium ETF is up 10% today: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PHPD.L Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In contrast, Toyota sold the Prius at a loss at first and provided a very good insurance policy that covered any flaw or inconvenience, including free oil change. A person had nothing to lose by trying out the new technology. Meanwhile, by the time the Volt hits the market, the Prius will be half its price and be totally proven in its behavior. Guess what will happen to GM. Ed On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Michael Foster wrote: I find this an exciting development. I hope GM can deliver. The 40 mile electric range would not quite cover my commute round-trip . . . It is exciting, but unfortunately the car is slated to cost ~$40,000 so they will not sell many. It a luxury market product, for wealthy people who want to help the environment. Perhaps they have leeway to lower the price. It does not seem to be especially complicated or expensive technology. But my guess is that they will charge what the market will bear (the highest price they can). I doubt they want to sell large numbers of a radically new design at first. There are bound to be problems and recalls. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Therefore, a small ICE will not work. For example, the Prius can travel at normal speed even without batteries, which happens in mountainous country when climbing a long hill. You would not want the speed to drop suddenly on a long hill. Ed On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Just to clear up a couple of points from Jed Rothwell's post: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. This is not the correct comparison to make! Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric -- and will have identical drive trains -- so the energy per mile is identical; and the comparison then is between having one vehicle: a.) operate solely on batteries, such as the Volt b.) and the other one operate on batteries most of the time, yet carrying a small diesel engine (motorcycle sized) to recharge the batteries in an emergency or for the occasional long trip. Due to the high cost of lithium batteries, option b.) would cost less, give greater security, and could be accomplished with low cost SLA batteries, for far less upfront cost than lithium. The downside of option b.) is that the diesel would need to come on for the last few miles of a long commute (but never for the trips to the grocery store etc.) Plus the big advantage is that option b.) is doable for probably $20,000 with SLA batteries- versus the lowest possible cost of the PHEV (which of course, will come down significantly once higher volume is achieved). Still many customer would rather have the security of NOT running out of juice on the freeway if the lithiums did not get a full charge; and another big advatave is being able to take a vacation by car without renting a vehicle to do it. And it is not either/or. There will be a big market for both types. In the end: option b.) should emerge as the mass market in terms of volume due to lower cost and flexibility. 2. Pollution abatement at most power plants is much better than for individual automobiles (except for CO2 of course). That would only be true without the catalytic converter, it seems. Or do you have a reference for that? At any rate, if the backup ICE is seldom used, the issue is moot. 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity. On a National average this is what? 35% in the USA ? This is not a large fraction. In some states, at nighttime when cars will be recharged, nearly all electricity comes from baseline nuclear power plants, or wind power in Texas. But even in those areas with nuclear power, many consumers would like to have the backup security of a small diesel. The SLA batteries which are used, would still charge at night, only for less time as they only need to give you half the range or less. The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from grid--home--batteries--vehicle, because of all the loses at every step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt. JR: I doubt it. I have read they are about equal. Certainly not if the electricity if generated with uranium or wind. Electric power generation efficiency is improving faster than automobile engine efficiency, as old coal-fired plants are being phased out and more wind power comes on line. If the US builds 10 or 20 more nuclear power plants it will be very difficult for any form of ICE to rival electric power for low pollution. Again - this comparison is being mis-stated. It should not be about the PHEV compared to the ICE, but instead it is about the optimum design for a hydrid - which need NOT be the all battery PHEV version. A small ICE combined with maybe 6-8 standard SLA batteries makes the most sense of all IMHO -- even if the ICE (in reserve) is only used by the driver infrequently in fact, the goal would be to design it so that it used very infrequently, but it is still always there if you need it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Really, serious? I get 48 m/g from the Prius in hilly country including going to Albuquerque at 75 m/h. Granted, I can't act like an idiot in a sports car. Nevertheless, I'm still able to buy both food and gas. Ed On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Top Gear environmental edition. Includes serious analysis of Prius about halfway in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL9O1H9e1rA From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 September 2008 17:49 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Therefore, a small ICE will not work. For example, the Prius can travel at normal speed even without batteries, which happens in mountainous country when climbing a long hill. You would not want the speed to drop suddenly on a long hill. Ed On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Just to clear up a couple of points from Jed Rothwell's post: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. This is not the correct comparison to make! Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric -- and will have identical drive trains -- so the energy per mile is identical; and the comparison then is between having one vehicle: a.) operate solely on batteries, such as the Volt b.) and the other one operate on batteries most of the time, yet carrying a small diesel engine (motorcycle sized) to recharge the batteries in an emergency or for the occasional long trip. Due to the high cost of lithium batteries, option b.) would cost less, give greater security, and could be accomplished with low cost SLA batteries, for far less upfront cost than lithium. The downside of option b.) is that the diesel would need to come on for the last few miles of a long commute (but never for the trips to the grocery store etc.) Plus the big advantage is that option b.) is doable for probably $20,000 with SLA batteries- versus the lowest possible cost of the PHEV (which of course, will come down significantly once higher volume is achieved). Still many customer would rather have the security of NOT running out of juice on the freeway if the lithiums did not get a full charge; and another big advatave is being able to take a vacation by car without renting a vehicle to do it. And it is not either/or. There will be a big market for both types. In the end: option b.) should emerge as the mass market in terms of volume due to lower cost and flexibility. 2. Pollution abatement at most power plants is much better than for individual automobiles (except for CO2 of course). That would only be true without the catalytic converter, it seems. Or do you have a reference for that? At any rate, if the backup ICE is seldom used, the issue is moot. 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity. On a National average this is what? 35% in the USA ? This is not a large fraction. In some states, at nighttime when cars will be recharged, nearly all electricity comes from baseline nuclear power plants, or wind power in Texas. But even in those areas with nuclear power, many consumers would like to have the backup security of a small diesel. The SLA batteries which are used, would still charge at night, only for less time as they only need to give you half the range or less. The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from grid--home--batteries--vehicle, because of all the loses at every step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt. JR: I doubt it. I have read they are about equal. Certainly not if the electricity if generated with uranium or wind. Electric power generation efficiency is improving faster than automobile engine efficiency, as old coal-fired plants are being phased out and more wind power comes on line. If the US builds 10 or 20 more nuclear power plants it will be very difficult for any form of ICE to rival electric power for low pollution. Again - this comparison is being mis-stated. It should not be about the PHEV compared to the ICE, but instead it is about the optimum design for a hydrid - which need NOT be the all battery PHEV version. A small ICE combined with maybe 6-8 standard SLA batteries makes the most sense of all IMHO -- even if the ICE (in reserve) is only used by the driver infrequently in fact, the goal would be to design it so that it used very infrequently, but it is still always there if you need it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
On Sep 18, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Well, it would not need to recharge while going uphill. You can leave the batteries flat for a while. In the Volt, I believe electric motor drives the wheels at all times, and the ICE connects only to the batteries. So if the batteries are flat and you are going up a steep hill at a high speed, my guess is the ICE works as hard as it can and the batteries stay flat. When the Prius batteries are low, the car is sluggish on steep hills and the engine makes more noise than usual, but I have never had trouble keeping up with other cars at highway speeds in the Carolinas and Georgia where people drive ridiculously fast (like 85 mph in a 70 mph zone). There is a very steep, long section of highway on Rt. 77 north to Rt. 80 (North Carolina to Virginia) that I have often driven, without difficulty. That has been my experience also. This means the engine has been sized to move the car at normal speed by itself. Any hybrid will need a big enough engine to do this. Otherwise, very few will be sold. The idea that a small engine starts charging the battery after the initial charge is used while the car is parked on the side of the road will not sell. Even if you keep moving, no one will want to go 55 mph while every one else is passing at 75 mph. Therefore, a lower limit is created for the size of the ICE, which is not small. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
On Sep 18, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence I have never seen this mentioned, but in principle the design could be described as very de-coupled, or modular. They are not calling it a 'hybrid' for a number of marketing reasons, preferring to call it an electric vehicle with a range extender. My major point is that they do NOT need a 40 mile range with expensive lithium batteries! The Volt motor specs are: 111 kW (150 hp) electric motor 1.4 L 4-cylinder gasoline engine for 53 kW genset. So, taking your numbers, they use the same size engine as in a Prius. The only difference is the way they couple the engine power to the wheels. The question is, Is this method more efficient and lighter than the way Toyota does the job? Otherwise, the behavior should be similar. Meanwhile both Toyota and GM are adding capacity by adding batteries. As a result we have a battery race, not a new concept. Toyota will win because they will be at least as efficient, but cheaper and more reliable. Ed All I am suggesting to do - to make this concept more affordable to the average Joe, is to: 1) dump the lithium in favor of advanced SLA 2) go for a battery range of 20 miles instead of 40 miles (20 was the range of the VH-1) which covers most day-to-day errands and short commutes 3) keep the electric motor the same size 4) trim the 4-cylinder down in power and weight to about 35 kW and make it a diesel, possibly a two cylinder diesel. At that power, the car will have a hard time keeping up with traffic when the batteries are exhausted. This would be the death of the idea. I believe this would cut $10,000 off the cost of batteries - making the vehicle affordable for a much larger segment of drivers. Compared to the present Prius, the smaller diesel will get significantly better mileage. If the driver knows he is needing to go hundered of miles in a day, he will have to plan ahead - but can set the genset to max power, and override the normal default setting and keep the batteries topped off as long as possible. Even so, he might need to stop for an intermediate range plug-in for a few hours. That would be the trade-off vis-a-vis a Prius. This is too complicated for most people. Too many would fail to do this and end up asking for help from their husbands. :-) I am not sure who came up with this idea initially - but they were claiming that it could get to 100 mpg, which of course becomes meaningless without knowing how much grid power is used, Jones
Re: [Vo]:Hidden Societal Megatrend?
Remi, you need to take into account what works. If telling the truth and being objective and rational got a person elected, more politicians would have these qualities. If the people voting were educated and rational, better leaders would be elected. The present system is the result of a bad combination of these limitations. As for innovation, it has no effect on society if the person does not know how to put the idea into the system. Many people are quietly innovative in their personal lives, but make no effort to change society. You only know about those people who had the skill or wish to get noticed. Ed On Sep 20, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Education is important but being scholarly doesn't well correlate to being innovative. Too many people make this mistake. Inventors are typically lazy and eclectic. By switching off in class and not doing prep they tend to half learn things and come up with their own systems. It is a very male trait. Maybe this is why men have the advantage because we are so arrogant, competitive and risk takers, the opposite of blue stocking types. The cocksureness of the new recruit who on day one can see how to do something better. Most are f..k.g annoying d.cks but the good ones are an asset once you get over the personality. The very diligent tend to end up hyper-specialized and writing the reference books. There is probably good correlation between elder siblings, diligence and a more controlling type personality and the more happy-go-lucky, rebellious younger ones. Also the more autistic type, or single child, non city dwelling type tend to be those people tinkering away, focused and disinterested with social play and games. Let's have a game of listing people: Edison (single child) Tesla (driven, focused, bachelor) Einstein (probably mild autism) The Wright Brothers (technical knowhow) Dirac (very intense) But then Feynman, Heisenberg very gregarious. (You see science doesn't only list the cases in its favour, you must list all the data) Please list more and list their attributes. The point being that these people don't like meetings, call a spade a spade (i.e. non PC, likely to get in trouble in today's climate), are independent, skillful, resourceful, logical, proud, against the superficial. In short your populist politico and the people they appeal to are the polar opposite. Using science to tell lies goes against the grain of these people. Many think man-made global warming is still a hypothesis. Sure take on board its suggestions make provision but don't call it fact.
Re: [Vo]:Here comes $500 oil
His prediction would be correct if nothing else happened. Now we have two additional variables in play. The first is a world-wide depression. This will reduce energy demand and reduce use of oil - for a while. By the time this is over, new sources and effective conservation methods will be available. The second is the response of users. Already demand in the US has gone down. As the price of gasoline goes up, people find ways to save or to use other sources. This is not rocket science. A bigger fear is the rise in food prices. The obese problem will gradually go away and be replaced by the underweight problem. I wonder how the government will handle this problem? Ed On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I normally pay little attention to magazine articles with titles like this, but this one appears to be authoritative. See: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/ Other oil experts make similar predictions but nowhere near as dire in the short term. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Here comes $500 oil
On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:47 PM, leaking pen wrote: The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat. True, but a person will lose weight by eating less crap. Nevertheless, the effect will be an interesting experiment for us who only have to watch. Ed On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: His prediction would be correct if nothing else happened. Now we have two additional variables in play. The first is a world-wide depression. This will reduce energy demand and reduce use of oil - for a while. By the time this is over, new sources and effective conservation methods will be available. The second is the response of users. Already demand in the US has gone down. As the price of gasoline goes up, people find ways to save or to use other sources. This is not rocket science. A bigger fear is the rise in food prices. The obese problem will gradually go away and be replaced by the underweight problem. I wonder how the government will handle this problem? Ed On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I normally pay little attention to magazine articles with titles like this, but this one appears to be authoritative. See: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/ Other oil experts make similar predictions but nowhere near as dire in the short term. - Jed
Re: [VO]: Sub-prime submarines
On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ron Wormus wrote: . . . a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency. Many people have noticed this! I doubt it will be included in the final bill. While I agree you are probable right Jed. However, you can be sure that the people who have a stake in how the system works and are interested in increasing their control, will not ignore a chance to increase their power. As a result, we are becoming less of a democracy, which is probably a good thing in view of how little thought or knowledge goes into the choice of president. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay . . . Well, it won't be entirely lost, even in the worst case. The properties are worth something. I think the worst are worth perhaps half or one-tenth as much as their present value. The taxpayers are likely to lose $200 billion or so, I think. In some previous bailouts, such the Chrysler bailout, the government ended up making money. Bailouts are still a bad idea in my opinion, but people should realize that the entire amount is not at risk. Some undefinable fraction of it is. Most agree, the fraction of worthless assets is much higher than ever before. In addition, the country is too weak in other respects to make a recovery possible. A country does not create a huge debt at all levels, then ship much of its manufacturing ability overseas, and then allow other countries to acquire the power that comes with owning so many dollars without paying a great price when the house of cards falls. Bush has created a perfect storm. I hope the people who elected and supported him are pleased. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Here comes $500 oil
I agree, Robin. The food industry has made money at our expense, at least at the expense of people who don't do their homework. But don't me started on this outrage. When trying to predict the future in order to protect myself, I ask, how many basic mistakes at every level of living can a country make and still survive? More to the point, how can a person avoid from being hit by this run-away truck? Ed On Sep 23, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:41:44 -0600: Hi, [snip] The obese problem will gradually go away and be replaced by the underweight problem. I wonder how the government will handle this problem? [snip] The problem of obesity may not go away, because it is probably more related to eating the wrong things than to eating too much. For it to go away would require a shift back to home cooking and away from fast food and snacks. Even then I suspect that it would also require the banning of margarine and canola. Margarine (and fast food) contains trans fats which interfere with the energy transport mechanism of the cell, and canola is IMO the primary candidate for an explanation of tiny holes in the insulating layer of fat that the body uses for blood vessels and nerves. Natural body processes attempt to plug these holes with cholesterol which then gives rise to plaques. When these plaques occur in the arteries around the heart they call it arteriosclerosis, when they occur around nerve cells in the brain they call it Alzheimer's disease. (All this is just my opinion, but I think worthy of further investigation). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VO]: Sub-prime submarines
On Sep 23, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:05:37 -0600: Hi, [snip] I hope the people who elected and supported him are pleased. [snip] He was voted for by lots of people, but he was never elected, as both elections were rigged. True, but small comfort. Nevertheless, this rigging would not have been effective if the election had not been so close. Now we have another close election, which demonstrates the total irrational thinking of at least 1/2 of the population. Ed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VO]: Sub-prime submarines
Good analysis Steven. I hope you are right. Ed On Sep 23, 2008, at 7:55 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Since we are speculating on presidential outcomes I thought this might be a good opportunity to share the opinions of a blatantly unscientific and unverified source - particularly insofar as this source's take on the election. Please take the following predictions with a grain of salt. ;-) The election will not be close. The democrats including presidential VP candidates Obama Biden will win by an unprecedented landslide this November. The reason the polls have appeared so close is that the pollsters are favoring the polling of undecided voters, which greatly skews the actual numbers. A new Republican presidential administration only has somewhere around a 10% chance of winning the presidential office this November. However, (and this is the really frightening point, from my POV) if the Republicans do manage to pull it off and win the presidential office, the age of the candidate, combined with pressures of acting as president, combined with PTSD (a diagnosis which BTW was never officially diagnosed because it would have ended McCain's political career decades ago), combined with a past history of a virulent form of cancer which is still in his body, will likely conspire and finish McCain off within a year after assuming the office. On top of that McCain isn't all that enthusiastic about being president. He accepted the role because his party asked him to, and being the good soldier that he is he wishes to serve his country. Meanwhile, Palin has picked up on most of these cues. It's why she accepted the VP position. She knows that it's likely that within a year of assuming the VP, she would then be president - without actually having to work at it. Shrewd. And now back to regularly scheduled programming. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/OrionWorks
Re: [Vo]:Subprime Submarines
On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:42 PM, thomas malloy wrote: Ed Storms opined: True, but small comfort. Nevertheless, this rigging would not have been effective if the election had not been so close. Now we have another close election, which demonstrates the total irrational thinking of at least 1/2 of the population. One of us has an incorrect world view, which could be termed a form of insanity. The question is, which half, eh? Good point. So I ask, which half would support the same people who helped get us into the mess and expect they would get us out? I don't mean that people who support McCain are insane, but I question the sanity of people who expect the entire system put in place by the Republican party to change. This system will not and cannot be changed by McCain because he has too many relationships to, friends of, and commitments to the party. This is the nature of politics and is the reason why when each party eventually screws up it has to be replaced by the other party for any change to take place. This is the history of politics in this country. I suggest anyone who votes for McCain expecting a change is delusional. The only issue is whether a change to what Obama would do is any better. Apparently, according to what even the administration admits, it can't be any worse. Ed --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Palin probably reduced the Bradley effect
Please Jeff, spare us the political propaganda. We get a belly full of this from the candidates. The point you make is trivial and irrelevant to the problem. The press is doing the job they are paid to do. They provide information that we use to make a rational decision if we are intelligent. On the other hand, if you intend to vote for a ticket no matter what is known just because it is Republican, then the press is not useful to you. In addition, any argument that I or anyone else can make will not change your mind. Therefore, a discussion of your point is a waste of time. Ed On Sep 24, 2008, at 8:34 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Palin probably reduced the Bradley effect BTW - although Palin was probably a positive choice for McCain, given all the demographics, it is turning out not to be anywhere near the brilliant strategy that it first seemed. He shoulda gone with Condi. The liberal media destroyed Condi way in advance to make sure she could never become a VP. In contrast, Palin has only been a target of the press for a few weeks. Do you realize that Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined? In her brief career she has gone after corrupt politicians and won amazing victories. Who else has ever done anything like that? You can bet that some of the Washington insiders are scared. Obama is run by the Chicago political machine. There may be a few turf battles if Obama wins, but beyond that in Washington, it will be business as usual or worse. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Do do do doo. Do do do doo...
For those who have not been following the news and do not have a fixed opinion about the financial problems, let me add a bit of reality. The collapse of the mortgage market was the event that started the collapse but it was not the true cause. The big problem is the derivative market. These are bets between companies about which way various factors such as interest rates or the value of a security will change. For example, I might buy a basket of mortgages and at the same time buy a derivative such that I would be paid a fixed sum if the value of the mortgages dropped below a certain value. Options in the securities world are similar but are more closely regulated. The problem is that the number of these derivatives has increased to a huge amount, as high as 50 trillion depending to who makes the calculation. Because they do not have to be reported, it is impossible to know just how much money is at risk. When the value of mortgages went down, some companies were required to make good on bets that required payment if the value of mortgages would go down. Because of the size of the bet made by some companies, they can't pay and will go into bankruptcy. As a result, the company counting on this payment also can't pay its debts. As a result, a problem has spread throughout the system. The solution requires mortgages be priced higher and money be supplied to allow these bets to be paid without the company having to fold its tent. This is not a simple process and it will invite certain people to gain an advantage. The only issue is how much advantage will be allowed while actually solving the problem. The same people who made the mess are trying to gain all they can while the conservative Republicans and the Democrats are trying to limit the advantage. Of course, McCain is trying to undo the damage his past votes caused while looking like a reformer. Obama is trying to design the bailout so that the pain is more evenly shared. Congress is making its usual attempt to take the easiest path. The outcome will determine the future of many people including some who supported the policies that made the mess. For people who do not understand what is happening to make ignorant suggestions or to think nothing be done is extremely irresponsible. This is like telling people on a sinking ship not to get into a lifeboat because they think the ship can float will being filled with water. Too late, their ignorance is proven wrong. Fortunately, most people have been sense. Ed On Sep 25, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Remi Cornwall wrote: They're baaack part II. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7634641.stm Yes, yes, yes the megaphone of public office. Most of what they say is true. But guys, that's some fine silk you're wearing and you don't really need a cathedral to preach from as Christ did it in the open air. The land capital of the Anglicans is legendary. Oh and I don't care if two (three, four, whatever) guys, sheep, cat and dogs get married in the privacy of their own homes. Oh and tell you RC friends to stop fiddling with little boys too. Looks like the good ol' feudal day of church and state are back this time they've got G.d, the poor, the environment and maybe a little bit of veggie fascism thrown in and male bashing too. I'm just waiting for these guys to do some miracles, ol' Semtex Sentamu to turn that staff into a lightsabre and deflect laser beams and then 'yoda' Williams to use the force and levitate things. My advice - don't buy it. Let the market correct itself and then some light obvious regulation: No more interest only mortgages More deposits up front with mortgages More transparency (short selling would work then - move money from over inflated businesses to more deserving, wealth redistribution) Separate high street banks from investment and insurance Crisis what bloody crisis? The public is the tit being milked right or is that the golden goose?
Re: [Vo]:Do do do doo. Do do do doo...
On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:51 AM, OrionWorks wrote: Sobering and provoking thoughts from Remi, Ed, and Terry. Gives me the shudders. I find it curious that the consumer credit card industry doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this mess, or perhaps I missed that aspect. Considering the huge credit card debt load that our population has accumulated over the years, the practice of enticing customers to borrow more and more money to the point that a significant portion of the population is now barely capable of making payments on the principal, I can't help but wonder if that isn't a significant contributing factor to the mess we are in. I'm constantly receiving credit card offers in the mail, typically two or three a week. They only have one goal: To get me in debt with them. Unfortunately, too many people have done just that. It's absolutely disgusting. I wish there was better regulation of the industry. We will pay for this mess. Indeed we will. As the system melts down, people will not have back-up savings to help them through the healing process. As a result, even more pain will be experienced. The only way the government can bail out the losers is to borrow or print money. This will cause interest rates to rise and inflation. Consequently, more foreclosures and an increase in the price of food will result. The pain will be widespread. We are looking at the beginning of a revolution in the US. We have been taught to believe our present system is the best in the world. When the people who have accepted this idea start to feel the pain, we will see a big change. Being a liberal will not look so bad. Pain is much more effective than argument or logic. Meanwhile, rest of us need to find a safe cave. Ed Answering Remi's prior question, I hold no position in industry or academia. Walking the talk is a highly subjective matter. Having done anything worth recognizing is also a highly subjective matter. And what good works have I personally done? Also highly subjective. It would seem that the older I've gotten, the more I've come to a personal realization that there is so much I don't know, or understand. But it's a start. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Do do do doo. Do do do doo...
Actually, credit is essential in an active economy. For example, suppose I want to start a business making widgets. Before I can get any income from their sale, I have to buy the machinery and hire people. This takes money up front, which must be borrowed. Once again, this is not rocket science. The problem is not the use of credit, it is the use of too much credit of the wrong kind. Normally the system is self regulating based on a bank taking responsibility for the loan and its repayment. This system broke down because a corrupt system was allow to grow in the US, mainly by the Bush administration. Again, this is a matter of fact, not opinion or liberal propaganda. Unless people acknowledge reality, there is no hope for a correction. Ed On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: I asked a friend once: How do things get their price? The price of something is whatever someone is prepared to pay for it. A false economy of credit is a house of cards. To me, in my simple way of thinking, money must ultimately come down to some form of barter for labour or resources. I just have the feeling that there are too many parasites, speculators, lifestyle gurus, interior designers, flim-flam and not enough people being rewarded for real work such as manufacture or agriculture - too much service sector. That bartering provides a means of living on the planet, right, at its most fundamental level? I break a leg then I need a medic, I need some food then I need a farmer, I need a house then I need a builder. I give something in return they decide if they need it or not. What happens when two pop music starlets need each other? - on a cruise ship imagine the cry, someone is about to suffer a major rhythm defect, is there a pop musician in the house? In times of economic collapse people barter skills or cigarettes. There's then a whole level of life's luxuries that we are willing to pay for - trans fatty acid cream buns, big SUVS, keeping up with the neighbours, sports stars or movie stars that inherently have no value. Therein lies the problem of credit card applications dropping on the doormat. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 September 2008 18:52 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Do do do doo. Do do do doo... Sobering and provoking thoughts from Remi, Ed, and Terry. Gives me the shudders. I find it curious that the consumer credit card industry doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this mess, or perhaps I missed that aspect. Considering the huge credit card debt load that our population has accumulated over the years, the practice of enticing customers to borrow more and more money to the point that a significant portion of the population is now barely capable of making payments on the principal, I can't help but wonder if that isn't a significant contributing factor to the mess we are in. I'm constantly receiving credit card offers in the mail, typically two or three a week. They only have one goal: To get me in debt with them. Unfortunately, too many people have done just that. It's absolutely disgusting. I wish there was better regulation of the industry. We will pay for this mess. Answering Remi's prior question, I hold no position in industry or academia. Walking the talk is a highly subjective matter. Having done anything worth recognizing is also a highly subjective matter. And what good works have I personally done? Also highly subjective. It would seem that the older I've gotten, the more I've come to a personal realization that there is so much I don't know, or understand. But it's a start. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
Hope this works Jed, or at least makes people aware. Ed On Sep 25, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html I submitted an application to this project. Not expecting a response, but anyway, I have covered this. In the application form field #11, Describe your idea in more depth. (maximum 300 words) I wrote the following: Cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect) is a nuclear effect that was replicated by Los Alamos, BARC and hundreds of other major laboratories worldwide. These replications were published in hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers. Cold fusion has produced temperatures and power density equivalent to a fission reactor core. It has produced hundreds of watts of heat from a device the same SIZE of a coin, and 10,000 times more energy than any possible chemical fuel. It has to potential to produce energy thousands of times cheaper than fossil fuel, with no carbon dioxide emissions, virtually no pollution, and unlimited supplies of fuel. Unfortunately, the research cannot be funded in the U.S. because of academic politics, opposition by funding agencies, and ridicule by a few major magazines and newspapers. Department of Energy (DoE) advisory panels have twice recommended that a modicum of research be funded, but the DoE has ignored this advice. It is time for the public to demand that scientists who wish to investigate this phenomenon be funded and allowed to do so. We advocate budgeting a few million dollars per year in basic research at National Laboratories and universities. If promising devices emerge, budgets should be increased to allow rapid development. Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million, which is what it cost to develop similar surface effect, solid-state devices such as the Aegis radar. Our web site features a bibliography of 3,500 research papers on cold fusion (including more than 1,000 peer-reviewed ones) and the full text from 500 papers. Our purpose is to provide accurate, original source information to the scientific community, and to educate the public about the vital need for this research. See lenr- canr.org
Re: [Vo]:Impeachment
On Sep 25, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Well, do you think it will happen? No. Hopefully some of the people will spend some time either in jail or trying to keep out of jail. Even this is not certain. We all know that in politics, the bigger the lie the more it is believed and the bigger the crime the more it is defended by the government, in this case, Republicans. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Do do do doo. Do do do doo...
I blame Bush and his attitude because it was the philosophy he supported that removed the necessary controls from the credit market. There is nothing mysterious or difficult to understand about what will happen when children are allowed to do anything they want. Many people pointed out that such a system could not last. The outcome was so obvious that a person had to wonder about the sanity and honesty of the players. However, the no-nothing ideologues and the people who made money fought any change. Now they and the rest of us will pay the price of this ignorance and greed. The situation is very simple and does not require deep analysis now that the predicted consequences have been made clear. Ed On Sep 25, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Mike Carrell wrote: Credit and confidence are essential for the creation of wealth. As Ed points out credit is needed to buy the menas for future production, whether of crops or goods. Confidence, or trust, is essential that the loan will be repaid. Whether implemented by barter, money, or credit cards, the essential structure is the same. Wealth is not in the tokensof exchange but in the created goods -- that the farmer can get seed and machinery to harvest the crops before the harvest occurs. The trap is that money itself can become a commodity, to be bought and sold without actual labor. One is again playing with confidence and its opposite, risk. The bank takes a risk that the loan will not be repaid, and carges a fee, called interest, for assuming the risk. In a way we all play the confidence game. As FDR said we only need to fear itself, the loss of confidence, which disrupts the mutual trust on which commerce depends. The finger of greed points in every direction. We want more than we give. Wealth is not a matter of how much we have, but how little we need. A gift of the industrial age is that essentials for many can be produced by labor of fewer and fewer. A curse of the industrial age is that fewer and fewer havethe satisfaction of meaningful contributions to others. Then the human urges for status play out in trivia. The global credit system should not be blamed on Bush. It is created by us all. The system dynamics is so complex that we individually and collectively do not really understand it, like the weather, climate, or a Mandelbrot Set. We get aircraft safety by analyzing crashes. Adjustments and controls will be necessary to recover fromt the present situation without choking off the dynamics of the creation of wealth. Fundmentally, it depends on energy, the energy of human intelligence, and the physical energy to do work of all kinds. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Do do do doo. Do do do doo... Actually, credit is essential in an active economy. For example, suppose I want to start a business making widgets. Before I can get any income from their sale, I have to buy the machinery and hire people. This takes money up front, which must be borrowed. Once again, this is not rocket science. The problem is not the use of credit, it is the use of too much credit of the wrong kind. Normally the system is self regulating based on a bank taking responsibility for the loan and its repayment. This system broke down because a corrupt system was allow to grow in the US, mainly by the Bush administration. Again, this is a matter of fact, not opinion or liberal propaganda. Unless people acknowledge reality, there is no hope for a correction. Ed On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: I asked a friend once: How do things get their price? The price of something is whatever someone is prepared to pay for it. A false economy of credit is a house of cards. To me, in my simple way of thinking, money must ultimately come down to some form of barter for labour or resources. I just have the feeling that there are too many parasites, speculators, lifestyle gurus, interior designers, flim-flam and not enough people being rewarded for real work such as manufacture or agriculture - too much service sector. That bartering provides a means of living on the planet, right, at its most fundamental level? I break a leg then I need a medic, I need some food then I need a farmer, I need a house then I need a builder. I give something in return they decide if they need it or not. What happens when two pop music starlets need each other? - on a cruise ship imagine the cry, someone is about to suffer a major rhythm defect, is there a pop musician in the house? In times of economic collapse people barter skills or cigarettes. There's then a whole level of life's luxuries that we are willing to pay for - trans fatty acid cream buns, big SUVS
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million . . . [snip] If my device works, it could be thousands of times more effective than the current CF reactors, and could be developed for less than 2 million dollars (and that's a very high estimate). Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a practical device. At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away from a practical device. I think Celani may also be in that position, but let us wait to see if he is replicated. Arata also has promising approach but who knows what to make of his calorimetry. No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is understood. Simply replicating a process that works is only the first step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process that will take much money and time. Even after the mechanism is understood, many more millions will be needed to show that the device is safe and will last long enough to be practical. Meanwhile, most investment money will go into solar and wind where the advantages are obvious and where a return on the dollar can be calculated. Cold fusion will get pennies until it can discover the mechanism though lucky chance. Meanwhile, we all can beat on the system to make it more receptive when the mechanism is discovered. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away from a practical device. . . . No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is understood. Well, I think the gist of the NRL guy's comment was that Pam Boss's neutrons or something like that may break ground for theory. That is, a breakthrough may illuminate the mechanism. I can imagine they are one breakthrough away from that (but of course it is impossible to know they are). It is not necessary for the breakthrough to lead directly to a practical device. I wish the Boss work were a breakthrough. Unfortunately, the process that makes apparent neutron emission during co-deposition cannot be operating in a heat-producing cell. Otherwise, the neutrons would have been easily detected. Evidence is growing for several mechanisms to be operating. We know that tritium can be produced on occasion without neutrons. Perhaps, the same mechanism makes neutrons without tritium. In any case, this process does not make helium, the source of the heat, and transmutation. Even tis observation opens all kinds of possible process that so far have not been demonstrated to be consistent with other expectations and with normal science. I agree with Ed about this, but it should be noted that other people such as Mike Melich feel that theory is somewhat overrated and that it is possible to make practical devices without a theory. He is the one who pointed to the Aegis radar example. According to him, the materials problems were worked out by Edisonian techniques and even today the theory is somewhat inadequate to explain performance. (I expect it is better than cold fusion theory.) Radar was not a nuclear reaction that might be put in homes. No one will permit a device that might blow up unexpectedly to be put into use. We all know this doesn't happen, but this must be proven beyond any doubt to the regulators. Only a complete understanding of the process will be believed. Simply replicating a process that works is only the first step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process that will take much money and time. Even after the mechanism is understood, many more millions will be needed to show that the device is safe and will last long enough to be practical. Right. Plus you have to design practical products and set up production lines and so on. I am sure in the end it will cost billions. But the costs are trivial compared to the benefits. The first essential steps -- the physics breakthrough -- may well be doable with a few million dollars, as Robin van Spaandonk claims. Frankly, even $100 million cannot guarantee clear thinking or a breakthrough. Everyone has their hopes and dreams. Next, a person needs to get other people to follow their lead, which is not easy to do even under the best of circumstances. This process will take years. Meanwhile enjoy the process but don't quit your day job. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
The choice is always the lesser of two evils. We never get perfection. Obama has less baggage than McCain, he is smarter, and he has a better plan. God only knows how well he will work out. People voted for Bush and Nixon with high expectations and look what happened. Each president does damage. The hope is the damage will be small enough to be repaired, which has been mostly the case. The damage caused by Bush may not be repairable any time soon. Ed On Sep 26, 2008, at 3:02 AM, Remi Cornwall wrote: http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-supervision-in-2003-1141 http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/09/18/ny-times-sept-2003-bush-proposed-tightening-oversight-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-the-democrats-of-congress-blocked-it/ Apparently democrats received money from lobbyists. What say you Jed? Still want them in? A failure of the system of the free market - all the fault of the greedy capitalists? That’s the angle we’re being fed in the EU by the Labour party and BBC. Apparently: Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists. Would you acknowledge this and the above or are you too partisan? From: Remi Cornwall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 00:59 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Lots of good stuff: http://www.capmag.com/ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 September 2008 23:55 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:05:23 -0600: Hi Ed, [snip] Evidence is growing for several mechanisms to be operating. We know that tritium can be produced on occasion without neutrons. Perhaps, the same mechanism makes neutrons without tritium. [snip] I find this somewhat confusing. The two common DD reactions are: D + D - T + p + 4 MeV (no neutrons) I and D + D - He3 + n + 3.3 MeV (one neutron).II Therefore, if only the first reaction takes place, then it is to be expected that T would be found with no neutrons. The second reaction would make neutrons, but would concurrently produce He3, not Tritium. Granted, in hot fusion, both reactions happen with about equal frequency, hence the concurrent production of both T and neutrons, however I see no reason why there couldn't be a shift in the ratio of the two reactions under the conditions of CF. (This may particularly be true if rather larger Deuterinos are involved, where the internuclear distance severely limits the reaction rate, thus perhaps enhancing any probability difference between the two reactions.) In that case I would expect it to be skewed toward the reaction with the largest energy release, and that is of course the first reaction. IOW I would expect to occasionally see T and protons, but rarely He3 plus neutrons. (It's easier for a neutron from one nucleus to tunnel across the gap to the other nucleus than for a proton to do so, because the neutron doesn't experience the Coulomb barrier - at least that's my simplistic explanation). I agree with much of your reasoning. However, we now know the tritium branch can be stimulated. Now we have a little evidence that the neutron branch might also be stimulated. Although the two branches are equal in hot fusion, the probably of stimulating each branch might depend on the environment in cold fusion. Stimulation of the He4 branch certainly depends on the environment, why not the other branches as well? You can also think of this in Mills' terms: On average in a Deuterino molecule, the nuclei will try to orient themselves such that the two protons are as far apart as possible (even at distance, before tunneling), which puts the two neutrons in the middle when tunneling does occur, preferentially resulting in the formation of T). If the distance between the nuclei gets very small OTOH, then it makes less and less difference, because the short range nuclear force will act without fear or favour, which is what we see with ordinary hot fusion, or with muon catalyzed fusion. Furthermore, in hot fusion the temperatures are so high that the rotational energy of the ions must of necessity also be high. That means that any preference the protons might have for staying as far apart as possible gets largely washed out. I suggest it is too early to suggest a mechanism. We are not yet sure the proposed neutrons are real. Regards, Ed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
The power of government always grows. This is a fact of life just like death and taxes. Complaining does no good and is a waste of time. The voters slightly control the rate of growth if they pay attention. Successful people find ways to use the system or to work under the radar. Right now, successful people have sold the securities that will fail and bought ones that will grow. In addition, the really successful people are in Washington writing the laws that will give them even more success. Only the treat of not being elected keeps the system under a little control. Of course, the ignorant will vote the same people back into power no matter what they do. These are the people who will suffer the most because they are not paying attention. Ed On Sep 26, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Remi Cornwall wrote: How do you regulate government then? Who governs the governors? When do governments vote themselves less power? I'm in agreement about corporations. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 18:08 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout The American constitution was formed with the concept of freedom for people, and that coorporations would do their best to oppress people. And they were right. They had the East Indies Trading Company, they knew what evil could be done. If such large businesses are allowed to exist, they must be regulated. And before you give me free market crap, a market in which such a large company exists is, by definition, no longer a free market, as those companies begin to provide external forces on the market themselves. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Remi Cornwall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not convinced about the need for more government. It attracts the Machiavellian type who don't deal in facts and distort truth (such as blaming the credit crunch on the free market when the demos vetoed reform). It attracts unproductive hangers-on to big public projects. It has allowed the massive build up of a stifling science establishment. I just find it like a 16th century scientist supporting the church or a monarchy. It's the opposite of progress to me. Just looking at the character of the people on the left it is the-lesser-of-two-evils to favour the right. The American constitution was forged in the light of the Enlightenment. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 17:27 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Less government on the individual. MORE on the corporation. and lets remove this political fiction of coorp as person, please! On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Remi Cornwall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A plague on both their houses! The less government the better. Trust your constitution that's why it was written. New energy will empower people to self-reliance. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 16:08 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout - Original Message ... apparently Remi does not remember the infamous Keating Five - ... from the net, a little refresher lesson in how recent political history has this nagging tendency to repeat itself every new generation: John McCain The Ghost of Keating Five posted last week by Ari Berman Back in the 1980s, when the US faced a major savings loan crisis, John McCain intervened to protect SL magnate Charles Keating - a major McCain donor and friend--from federal regulators. McCain was later rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for poor judgement and embarrassed by the $112,000 in campaign contributions, trips and gifts he accepted from Keating. Following the entanglement, McCain became a born-again reformer and tried to scrub the Keating episode from his resume. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/361711/john_mccain_the_ghost_ of_keating_five In fact - it has been reported that Wiki was under intense pressure from McCain operatives when the new SL Scandal become issue numeror uno in the public's view - to have the pictures removed from the Wiki entry ... IOW even if they knew they could not rewrite the history of the indent (but were able to tone down some of the rhetoric) they did not want the actual picture of McCain there - as apparently that was too inflamatory !!! ... or else some of the expected McCain supporters don't read much but are impressed with visual images?
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
On Sep 26, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Ed: what you say sounds cynical and jaded. I suppose it does to someone who believes in the ideal function of government. However, if you examine the actual behavior, you will find that the number of laws always grow in number and complexity. The tax laws are a good example. This may not be what people want to hear but it is a fact. Some of this growth takes placed because conditions change and new laws are required to control the technology. At the same time, industry works very hard to protect and enlarge its self interest. Most people have no idea what laws and rules exist until they are subjected to the legal system. In addition, the government works hard to hide many laws that benefit certain industries or individuals. Personally, I would rather accept how the system actually operates rather than be surprised because I have an ideal understanding of what I wish were true. Ed Jed*: If you think they give back 'their' powers then I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Leaking Pen: The government **IS** the biggest **corporation** bar- none. It's the biggest show in town for the old bloods since we won't worship them anymore in church or on thrones. This democrat veto needs to be explored: replace society or government with Reich and capitalist with Jew and then you will see the scapegoating going on. * In recent times: Patriot Act in UK RIPA (Regulatory and Investigative Powers Act - phone tapping and so forth) and many more I could find if I was a lawyer and constitutional expert. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 18:58 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout What is a government? You treat it like some seperate entity. It shouldn't be. Government is society. It is US. A government should be a tool of a society to set up its rules. If it becomes seperate from that society, well, its no longer needed. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Remi Cornwall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you regulate government then? Who governs the governors? When do governments vote themselves less power? I'm in agreement about corporations. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 18:08 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout The American constitution was formed with the concept of freedom for people, and that coorporations would do their best to oppress people. And they were right. They had the East Indies Trading Company, they knew what evil could be done. If such large businesses are allowed to exist, they must be regulated. And before you give me free market crap, a market in which such a large company exists is, by definition, no longer a free market, as those companies begin to provide external forces on the market themselves. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Remi Cornwall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not convinced about the need for more government. It attracts the Machiavellian type who don't deal in facts and distort truth (such as blaming the credit crunch on the free market when the demos vetoed reform). It attracts unproductive hangers-on to big public projects. It has allowed the massive build up of a stifling science establishment. I just find it like a 16th century scientist supporting the church or a monarchy. It's the opposite of progress to me. Just looking at the character of the people on the left it is the-lesser-of-two-evils to favour the right. The American constitution was forged in the light of the Enlightenment. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 17:27 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Less government on the individual. MORE on the corporation. and lets remove this political fiction of coorp as person, please! On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Remi Cornwall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A plague on both their houses! The less government the better. Trust your constitution that's why it was written. New energy will empower people to self-reliance. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 16:08 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout - Original Message ... apparently Remi does not remember the infamous Keating Five - ... from the net, a little refresher lesson in how recent political history has this nagging tendency to repeat itself every new generation: John McCain The Ghost of Keating Five posted last week by Ari Berman Back in the 1980s, when the US faced a major savings loan crisis, John McCain intervened to protect SL magnate Charles Keating - a major McCain donor and friend--from federal regulators. McCain was later rebuked by the Senate
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
On Sep 26, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: The power of government always grows. Except when it shrinks. Of course some laws are repealed and some are no longer enforced unless you get caught doing something that threatens the government. Nevertheless, the number of laws on the books grows. Check at any legal library to see the size of case book law that has accumulated. Take a look at the tax code sometime. The Patriot Act generated a whole new collection of laws that I hope you never violate. The US government does not insist that all laws are enforced, depending where you live. For example, if you live in Los Alamos, NM, every law of every kind is enforced. On the other hand, Santa Fe is much more forgiving. Most people, if they play by the basic rules are ignored everywhere, unless you are black in certain neighborhoods. My point is, you have no idea what laws exist unless you are a lawyer or have been targeted by the legal system. Ed That's a rather silly thing to say, Ed. If it always grew then we would be living in a 1984 dystopia by now. In fact, the power of government in the US is far smaller than it used to be, when you take into account both local and national governments. In the 1840s, local governments in New England compelled men to shave their beards, and jailed them and beat the crap out of them when they refused. Governments made all forms of contraceptives illegal, and of course in the South they made marriage between races illegal. (Not to mention learning to read, getting paid for work, or leaving on one's own accord.) From circa 1900 to 1970, Federal and local governments sterilized thousands of people without their consent. Savage Jim Crow laws were enforced from the late 19th century well into the 1960s. (Actually, they are alive today, albeit attenuated. On Saturday I spoke with a middle-aged black woman whose mother, in Florida, was turned away from the polls in a recent election because there was a hyphen in her mailing address not shown on her driver's license. I guarantee that would never happen to a white voter! The Obama campaign has a full-time lawyer in Georgia fighting this kind of thing, but there are thousands of cases.) During World War I the government persecuted people of German descent, and during WWII it imprisoned 110,000 Americans of Japanese descent, robbing them of their houses, businesses and all of their material goods, while -- in many case -- their sons were serving in the U.S. Army, in some of the most highly decorated battalions in U.S. history. After the war, during the McCarthy era, persecution of dissent was widespread. There are countless other examples. Up until the 1960s, many First Amendment rights were a dead letter. Governments routinely invaded privacy, tapped peoples phones, beat prisoners suspected of crimes, fired people for expressing opinions or writing letters to the editor, and on, and on. I have a Life magazine article poking fun at a government employee who was summarily fired because they found out he performed in amateur ballet and modern dance on weekends. Going back to the colonial era, some New England local governments would invade people's households and check to be sure that parents have taught their children their ABCs by age 6, and that they were attending church every week. Children who did not learn were taken from their parents by force and raised by other families. People should learn the history of civil rights in the United States. I recommend I. Glasser, Visions of Liberty, Arcade, 1991. There is also far more economic freedom and genuine capitalism in the US than there used to be. The antitrust laws are called the Businessman's First Amendment for good reason. Before they were passed and later enforced, small businessmen did not have a chance against cartels and large businesses. Read about business practices before the 1920s and you will see that outrageous violations of business ethics were common, and the freedom to compete was largely an illusion. Compared to the past, we are now living in the golden era of individual rights and the freedom to do whatever you please. Right- wing commentators who claim otherwise know nothing about history, or -- in some cases -- they willfully ignore what happened to black people, Japanese-Americans, Native Americans, and other minorities. They pretend that only white people were part of history, and the others don't count. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
On Sep 26, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: I guess you'd make a great Chinese citizen. Frankly I do not have any idea what you mean or the relevance of the comment. For your information, recognizing how a government operates does not mean that I wish for this behavior to continue. However, I do get testy when people complain and suggest cures without the slightest idea what disease is being treated. If you were a doctor, your patient would have died long ago. Ed -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 19:48 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout On Sep 26, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Ed: what you say sounds cynical and jaded. I suppose it does to someone who believes in the ideal function of government. However, if you examine the actual behavior, you will find that the number of laws always grow in number and complexity. The tax laws are a good example. This may not be what people want to hear but it is a fact. Some of this growth takes placed because conditions change and new laws are required to control the technology. At the same time, industry works very hard to protect and enlarge its self interest. Most people have no idea what laws and rules exist until they are subjected to the legal system. In addition, the government works hard to hide many laws that benefit certain industries or individuals. Personally, I would rather accept how the system actually operates rather than be surprised because I have an ideal understanding of what I wish were true. Ed Jed*: If you think they give back 'their' powers then I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Leaking Pen: The government **IS** the biggest **corporation** bar- none. It's the biggest show in town for the old bloods since we won't worship them anymore in church or on thrones. This democrat veto needs to be explored: replace society or government with Reich and capitalist with Jew and then you will see the scapegoating going on. * In recent times: Patriot Act in UK RIPA (Regulatory and Investigative Powers Act - phone tapping and so forth) and many more I could find if I was a lawyer and constitutional expert. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 18:58 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout What is a government? You treat it like some seperate entity. It shouldn't be. Government is society. It is US. A government should be a tool of a society to set up its rules. If it becomes seperate from that society, well, its no longer needed. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Remi Cornwall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you regulate government then? Who governs the governors? When do governments vote themselves less power? I'm in agreement about corporations. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 18:08 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout The American constitution was formed with the concept of freedom for people, and that coorporations would do their best to oppress people. And they were right. They had the East Indies Trading Company, they knew what evil could be done. If such large businesses are allowed to exist, they must be regulated. And before you give me free market crap, a market in which such a large company exists is, by definition, no longer a free market, as those companies begin to provide external forces on the market themselves. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Remi Cornwall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not convinced about the need for more government. It attracts the Machiavellian type who don't deal in facts and distort truth (such as blaming the credit crunch on the free market when the demos vetoed reform). It attracts unproductive hangers-on to big public projects. It has allowed the massive build up of a stifling science establishment. I just find it like a 16th century scientist supporting the church or a monarchy. It's the opposite of progress to me. Just looking at the character of the people on the left it is the-lesser-of-two-evils to favour the right. The American constitution was forged in the light of the Enlightenment. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 17:27 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Less government on the individual. MORE on the corporation. and lets remove this political fiction of coorp as person, please! On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Remi Cornwall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A plague on both their houses! The less government the better. Trust your constitution that's why it was written. New energy will empower people to self-reliance. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26
Re: [Vo]:Impeachment
I doubt that any argument would change your mind, Thomas. Given your expressed values, I expect you voted for Bush. Are you happy with this vote? Has your life improved? If it has, then you are one of the few lucky people who would certainly like the good times to continue. If not, why would you want to make the same mistake? Ed On Sep 26, 2008, at 1:01 PM, thomas malloy wrote: Jed Rothwell posted; Meanwhile, I am sorry to report that McCain has pulled dead even with Obama in the polls. See: http://gallup.com/home.aspx http://webmail.usfamily.net/web/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgallup.com%2Fhome.aspx Yes!! I'm going to put my McCain sign on my house, along with the Country First sign. If Obama cannot win in these circumstances, I fear he cannot win at all. If the Demcrats had nominated someone decient, a fiscally conservative prolife candidate, they'd wind by a landslide. But no, they had to nominate the man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. If the abortion doesn't kill the baby, let it lie on the counter till it does die. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Impeachment
On Sep 26, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Ed, A McCain/Palin administration does not represent a continuation. I wish you were right about this opinion. However, the easily verified facts say that you are not right. Of course, any fact can be ignored if you insist on keeping an opinion. However, in my life, I have found this approach does not work very well. How has this approach worked out for you? Ed What you wanna do? Change the name of the country too? -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 20:27 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Impeachment I doubt that any argument would change your mind, Thomas. Given your expressed values, I expect you voted for Bush. Are you happy with this vote? Has your life improved? If it has, then you are one of the few lucky people who would certainly like the good times to continue. If not, why would you want to make the same mistake? Ed On Sep 26, 2008, at 1:01 PM, thomas malloy wrote: Jed Rothwell posted; Meanwhile, I am sorry to report that McCain has pulled dead even with Obama in the polls. See: http://gallup.com/home.aspx http://webmail.usfamily.net/web/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgallup.com %2Fhome.aspx Yes!! I'm going to put my McCain sign on my house, along with the Country First sign. If Obama cannot win in these circumstances, I fear he cannot win at all. If the Demcrats had nominated someone decient, a fiscally conservative prolife candidate, they'd wind by a landslide. But no, they had to nominate the man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. If the abortion doesn't kill the baby, let it lie on the counter till it does die. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
Actually, only the Supreme Court can answer this question and they show no interest in doing so. The cause of the problem is obvious to anyone who has looked at reality. Many mistakes were made, but each has been identified and attempts will be made to apply a correction. Of course, the corrections will be imperfect because of the required compromises, but they will be put in place no matter who is elected. The only issue of this electron is how will the next mistake be handled? The next mistake is now being created by the structure of the bailout. The next president will have runaway inflation and high interest rates. Who do you think will handle this problem to your benefit? Ed On Sep 26, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: -Original Message- From: Jeff Fink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 3:17 PM To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Subject: RE: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Could we say that most of the problems with the US government can be traced to areas where it extends beyond its constitutional limits? Jeff
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
On Sep 26, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Actually, only the Supreme Court can answer this question and they show no interest in doing so. The cause of the problem is obvious to anyone who has looked at reality. Many mistakes were made, but each has been identified and attempts will be made to apply a correction. Of course, the corrections will be imperfect because of the required compromises, but they will be put in place no matter who is elected. The only issue of this electron is how will the next mistake be handled? The next mistake is now being created by the structure of the bailout. The next president will have runaway inflation and high interest rates. Who do you think will handle this problem to your benefit? Ed Right now we have inflation running at approximately 10% annual rate and savings accounts paying around 1 1/2% for a net loss of 8 1/2%. On top of that we must pay income tax on the 1 1/2%. Part of Obama's plan to balance the budget is to subject that 1 1/2% to social security payments as well! It is part of his plan to redistribute the wealth. Inflation is a tax, and it loots the savers. The stock market is too scary to mess with. I- bonds are paying 0% interest right now, but even at that, they might be the best investment out there. The majority of people endeavor to conduct their lives in such a manner so as not to be a burden to others. They are the targets of this redistribution. Some poor people seek jobs while others milk the system. If the job creators are plundered by the government, where will the jobs come from? When the haves are reduced to havenots, we will all be losers. We cannot advance the economy by punishing the hard working successful. Jeff Jeff, Obama and the Democrats did not create this situation. The Republicans ran up the national debt, which added to inflation and they kept interest rates low to encourage the financial system to be more profitable. They also reduced oversight on the financial system so that it could be more profitable. Of course, the conservatives and the opposition party should have fought harder against the Bush faction. Now everyone has suddendly seen the light, and each side is trying to look good while solving the problem consistent with own self- interest. The Bush bunch, who brought us Iraq, now has come up with an equally incompetent plan, which fortunately is being resisted. No matter what is done, the new president will have limited options and we all will suffer. Do you want an intelligent person who analyzes a problem based on facts or a person that shoots from the hip based on short term considerations? Do you want a person who will last 4 years or someone who will allow Palin to take charge? Of course, the different known approaches to the present problem need to be considered. Have you compared the McCain plan to the Obama plan? We can't afford another mistake as was made when Bush was elected. Ed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
In case anyone was confused about what is happening, here is a good summary.EdMONEYANDMARKETS»Emergency EditionSaturday, September 27, 2008YOUR BEST SOURCE FOR THE UNBIASED MARKET COMMENTARY YOU WON'T GET FROM WALL STREET[«] Money and Markets 2008 ArchiveView This Issue On Our Website [»]Emergency Edition: Wall Street MeltdownbyMartin D. Weiss, Ph.D.Dear Edmund,Our nation is suffering through a financial emergency, and I wanted to make sure you get this urgent message now, before it's too late.Right at this moment, in an attempt to prevent a Wall Street meltdown from beginning as soon as Monday, Congress is locked in a last-ditch effort to produce a bailout package before Sunday evening when Asian markets open.Whether they succeed in their weekend endeavor or not, three things are crystal clear:1.The U.S. credit engine isalreadymelting down. In fact, just this week, the all-important market for short-term commercial paper has come to a virtual standstill. This is precisely the market we warned you about. Now it's collapsing. And if this pattern continues, it's likely to drive many corporations that depend on this instant cash into instant bankruptcy.2.Although a massive federal bailout might help rally the stock market temporarily, it isnot— and will not — reverse the credit meltdown.3.Quite to the contrary, fear is now spreading throughout the banking industry, driving many Americans to pull their money out of the financial system entirely. Yes, it makes sense to shift from weak to strong institutions, and that's rational. But the behavior we're beginning to witness is both irrational and dangerous.Here's what we are doing.First,as a follow-up to our white paper submitted to Congress this week,"Proposed $700 Billion Bailout Is Too Little, Too Late to End the Debt Crisis; Too Much, Too Soon for the U.S. Bond Market," we are recommending that Congress focus less on bailing out imprudent institutions and more on fortifying the safety net of individuals caught in failed financial institutions. Some urgent steps include:Fully fund and staff the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to better prepare for the possibility of multiple bank failures occurring at the same time.Close major gaps in the coverage provided by Securities Investors Protection Corporation (SIPC) to help make sure investors are not denied access to their accounts when they need to liquidate their securities in a falling market.Seriously consider federal insurance to cover policyholders in failed insurance companies.Our major point to Congress: These actions cannot wait. Just this week, data from Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) shows that Washington Mutual suffered panicky withdrawals averaging $2 billion per day over the past eight business days. Now, in order to help prevent the spread of panic among bank, brokerage and insurance company customers, firm and swift action is needed to sew up the holes in our nation's existing safety nets.Second,we have taken steps to help you find safety. For all the details, we hope you didn't miss out 1-hour educational video, "The X List."Third,we are doing everything we can to help you go on the offensive to convert this massive crisis into a massive profit opportunity. And with that goal in mind, we've just posted anupdated report to our Website with specific instructions.We expect this massive crisis could come to a head very quickly, and we anticipate a Black October for the stock market.Click herenow so you can act before then.Good luck and God bless!Martin
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
Come on, get real. No one is forced into the stock market this way. Pass book accounts always pay less than other investments because they are considered safer. Same with money market accounts. A trade off always exists between safety and the risk of making more money. Lots of different investment methods exist these days that allow a person to match their risk to an expected reward. The difference between these methods involves how much knowledge and attention is required. A passbook account requires no knowledge, hence gives the least return. Money can be made in the stock market even now, but this requires knowledge and attention, which most people do not have or do not want to get. In this life, you get what you pay for. In making money the payment is in time and attention. Otherwise, you have only yourself to blame. Ed On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:16 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Jeff, You hit the nail with your head when you pointed out the loss of rates on passbook accounts. The loss of reasonable returns on these havens forced people into the money market and eventually into the stock market. The result is an inflated and volatile stock market and people living on the edge of panic. I'm not sure the bailout will restore the waning faith of the masses. And, our entire financial system is founded on faith in fiat funds be it cash, stocks or bonds. Terry. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Actually, only the Supreme Court can answer this question and they show no interest in doing so. The cause of the problem is obvious to anyone who has looked at reality. Many mistakes were made, but each has been identified and attempts will be made to apply a correction. Of course, the corrections will be imperfect because of the required compromises, but they will be put in place no matter who is elected. The only issue of this electron is how will the next mistake be handled? The next mistake is now being created by the structure of the bailout. The next president will have runaway inflation and high interest rates. Who do you think will handle this problem to your benefit? Ed Right now we have inflation running at approximately 10% annual rate and savings accounts paying around 1 1/2% for a net loss of 8 1/2%. On top of that we must pay income tax on the 1 1/2%. Part of Obama's plan to balance the budget is to subject that 1 1/2% to social security payments as well! It is part of his plan to redistribute the wealth. Inflation is a tax, and it loots the savers. The stock market is too scary to mess with. I-bonds are paying 0% interest right now, but even at that, they might be the best investment out there. The majority of people endeavor to conduct their lives in such a manner so as not to be a burden to others. They are the targets of this redistribution. Some poor people seek jobs while others milk the system. If the job creators are plundered by the government, where will the jobs come from? When the haves are reduced to havenots, we will all be losers. We cannot advance the economy by punishing the hard working successful. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
Yes, 4th line first word. Ed On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Did you see the word 'forced' in my post? Terry On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on, get real. No one is forced into the stock market this way. Pass book accounts always pay less than other investments because they are considered safer. Same with money market accounts. A trade off always exists between safety and the risk of making more money. Lots of different investment methods exist these days that allow a person to match their risk to an expected reward. The difference between these methods involves how much knowledge and attention is required. A passbook account requires no knowledge, hence gives the least return. Money can be made in the stock market even now, but this requires knowledge and attention, which most people do not have or do not want to get. In this life, you get what you pay for. In making money the payment is in time and attention. Otherwise, you have only yourself to blame. Ed On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:16 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Jeff, You hit the nail with your head when you pointed out the loss of rates on passbook accounts. The loss of reasonable returns on these havens forced people into the money market and eventually into the stock market. The result is an inflated and volatile stock market and people living on the edge of panic. I'm not sure the bailout will restore the waning faith of the masses. And, our entire financial system is founded on faith in fiat funds be it cash, stocks or bonds. Terry. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Actually, only the Supreme Court can answer this question and they show no interest in doing so. The cause of the problem is obvious to anyone who has looked at reality. Many mistakes were made, but each has been identified and attempts will be made to apply a correction. Of course, the corrections will be imperfect because of the required compromises, but they will be put in place no matter who is elected. The only issue of this electron is how will the next mistake be handled? The next mistake is now being created by the structure of the bailout. The next president will have runaway inflation and high interest rates. Who do you think will handle this problem to your benefit? Ed Right now we have inflation running at approximately 10% annual rate and savings accounts paying around 1 1/2% for a net loss of 8 1/2%. On top of that we must pay income tax on the 1 1/2%. Part of Obama's plan to balance the budget is to subject that 1 1/2% to social security payments as well! It is part of his plan to redistribute the wealth. Inflation is a tax, and it loots the savers. The stock market is too scary to mess with. I-bonds are paying 0% interest right now, but even at that, they might be the best investment out there. The majority of people endeavor to conduct their lives in such a manner so as not to be a burden to others. They are the targets of this redistribution. Some poor people seek jobs while others milk the system. If the job creators are plundered by the government, where will the jobs come from? When the haves are reduced to havenots, we will all be losers. We cannot advance the economy by punishing the hard working successful. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
On Sep 27, 2008, at 9:05 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Damn! How'd that get there? People were forced into the money market. The traditional way for saving when I was a child was the passbook account. I prided myself for every dollar that got stamped into my book. The move by the banks to reduce these rates made people look at certificates of deposits. The CDs gave the banks reassurance that the money would remain with them for the term of the deposit. Then the money market fell and many people who were living off their retirement funds moved into mutual funds in order to maintain their ROI. The result is an inflated stock market. You *do* agree that the peak of 14,000 was quite inflated for the DOW? Well, yes and no. Yes because this level did not last and no because the recent melt down of the market has caused an unnatural reduction. Inflation should and will cause the market to go higher eventually, once the dust clears. However, if some big companies go bankrupt, this might take awhile. People who want safety usually go into the bond market, not the stock market. A person can buy a bond that pays a fixed and known interest and know that the principal is safe. Unfortunately, people bought bond mutual funds where this is not true. I agree, people go into the stock market because the returns are better. However, they made their choices based on either poor information or on the self-interest of the adviser. When the market goes up, almost any choice will make money. The mistake is believing the market will always go up and that the adviser cares if you lose you shirt. In short, people had ways to get a better safe return, but in their ignorance took bad advice, just like people who bought homes they could not afford. A price is always paid for ignorance. Ed Terry On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, 4th line first word. Ed On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Did you see the word 'forced' in my post? Terry On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on, get real. No one is forced into the stock market this way. Pass book accounts always pay less than other investments because they are considered safer. Same with money market accounts. A trade off always exists between safety and the risk of making more money. Lots of different investment methods exist these days that allow a person to match their risk to an expected reward. The difference between these methods involves how much knowledge and attention is required. A passbook account requires no knowledge, hence gives the least return. Money can be made in the stock market even now, but this requires knowledge and attention, which most people do not have or do not want to get. In this life, you get what you pay for. In making money the payment is in time and attention. Otherwise, you have only yourself to blame. Ed On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:16 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Jeff, You hit the nail with your head when you pointed out the loss of rates on passbook accounts. The loss of reasonable returns on these havens forced people into the money market and eventually into the stock market. The result is an inflated and volatile stock market and people living on the edge of panic. I'm not sure the bailout will restore the waning faith of the masses. And, our entire financial system is founded on faith in fiat funds be it cash, stocks or bonds. Terry. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Actually, only the Supreme Court can answer this question and they show no interest in doing so. The cause of the problem is obvious to anyone who has looked at reality. Many mistakes were made, but each has been identified and attempts will be made to apply a correction. Of course, the corrections will be imperfect because of the required compromises, but they will be put in place no matter who is elected. The only issue of this electron is how will the next mistake be handled? The next mistake is now being created by the structure of the bailout. The next president will have runaway inflation and high interest rates. Who do you think will handle this problem to your benefit? Ed Right now we have inflation running at approximately 10% annual rate and savings accounts paying around 1 1/2% for a net loss of 8 1/2%. On top of that we must pay income tax on the 1 1/2%. Part of Obama's plan to balance the budget is to subject that 1 1/2% to social security payments as well! It is part of his plan to redistribute the wealth. Inflation is a tax, and it loots the savers. The stock market is too scary to mess
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
Good story, Terry. However, a few people in the village did not buy back the monkeys because they saw through the scam. These people then bought land from the people who now needed money and eventually owned the village. So the story is not without its happy ending. Ed On Sep 27, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Here is an amusing anecdote: Once upon a time in a village, a man appeared and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each. The villagers seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest, and started catching them. The man bought thousands at $10 and as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort. He further announced that he would now buy at $20. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again. Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey, let alone catch it! The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at $50 ! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy on behalf of him. In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers. Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has collected. I will sell them to you at $35 and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each. The villagers rounded up with all their savings and bought all the monkeys. Then they never saw the man nor his assistant again, only monkeys everywhere! Now you have a better understanding of how the stock market works! end On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damn! How'd that get there? People were forced into the money market. The traditional way for saving when I was a child was the passbook account. I prided myself for every dollar that got stamped into my book. The move by the banks to reduce these rates made people look at certificates of deposits. The CDs gave the banks reassurance that the money would remain with them for the term of the deposit. Then the money market fell and many people who were living off their retirement funds moved into mutual funds in order to maintain their ROI. The result is an inflated stock market. You *do* agree that the peak of 14,000 was quite inflated for the DOW? Terry On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, 4th line first word. Ed On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Did you see the word 'forced' in my post? Terry On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on, get real. No one is forced into the stock market this way. Pass book accounts always pay less than other investments because they are considered safer. Same with money market accounts. A trade off always exists between safety and the risk of making more money. Lots of different investment methods exist these days that allow a person to match their risk to an expected reward. The difference between these methods involves how much knowledge and attention is required. A passbook account requires no knowledge, hence gives the least return. Money can be made in the stock market even now, but this requires knowledge and attention, which most people do not have or do not want to get. In this life, you get what you pay for. In making money the payment is in time and attention. Otherwise, you have only yourself to blame. Ed On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:16 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Jeff, You hit the nail with your head when you pointed out the loss of rates on passbook accounts. The loss of reasonable returns on these havens forced people into the money market and eventually into the stock market. The result is an inflated and volatile stock market and people living on the edge of panic. I'm not sure the bailout will restore the waning faith of the masses. And, our entire financial system is founded on faith in fiat funds be it cash, stocks or bonds. Terry. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Actually, only the Supreme Court can answer this question and they show no interest in doing so. The cause of the problem is obvious to anyone who has looked at reality. Many mistakes were made, but each has been identified and attempts will be made to apply a correction. Of course, the corrections will be imperfect because of the required compromises, but they will be put in place no matter who is elected. The only issue of this electron is how will the next mistake be handled? The next mistake is now being created by the structure of the bailout
Re: [Vo]:It Was Magnetism
Of course steel gets soft as it is heated. Blacksmiths would be very disappointed if it didn't. The role of any magnetic transition is irrelevant. Have people completely lost their common sense. The towers came down because the steel became too weak to support the weight. I wish people would focus on that part of the event that does not have a rational explanation rather than being distracted by nonsense. Ed On Sep 27, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: I knew it! I knew it! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/magnetic-forces-to-blame-for-911-tower-collapse-924509.html http://snipurl.com/3q99t [www_independent_co_uk]
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Zero: the 911 investigation in ten segments
Who benefits? Russia - We are stretched too thin to respond to their actions. China- We need their money and are willing to sell our companies cheap. Military-Industrial-Complex- The bigger the threat, the more they make. Europe - The weaker we are, the less competition we are for them. International Corporations - The weaker the dollar, the more they make. Muslims countries - The weaker we are, the less able we are to counter their actions. iran - They will get the bomb because we are weaker. Who loses? Israel The Republican party and its philosophy. The Bush legacy. You and I Ed On Sep 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, R C Macaulay wrote: The common demoninator is the economy. When some group planned the destruction of the USA, our achilles heel is the economic model we have. Start a war on credit like LBJ did during Vietnam and Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq. and simply stand back and watch. The question is.. who benefits and who profits?.. not the muslim nations, not Europe,not Africa or South America, not India, China or Russia.. ask yourself who is left. Richard
Re: [Vo]:***Dr. Al Swimmer Endorses Joseph Newman's Energy Machine!
Newman could prove his claims so easily if he simply used conventional methods and concepts to measure the power produced by his machine. Instead, he insists on speaking nonsense. As any engineer knows, the rate that a shaft turns has only a slight relationship to the power being applied. The friction of the bearings and work being done by the system determine the amount of power required to turn a shaft, which he ignores. Is he ignorant or is he trying to con the ignorant? Does he have a real energy source or not? Ed On Sep 28, 2008, at 12:58 PM, JNPCo. wrote: NEW VIDEO JUST RELEASED! Dr. Al Swimmer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of a major university endorses Joseph Newman's Energy Machine! See the newest 27-minute video entitled The Big Eureka at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4046889525089046946hl=en *** THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN An Invention Whose Time Has Come! Nikola Tesla once wrote: The day when we shall know exactly what electricity is, will chronicle an event probably greater than any other recorded in the human race. * IMAGINE a civilization with an access to virtually unlimited energy . . . * IMAGINE an energy source that is abundant, inexpensive, and environmentally-friendly . . . * IMAGINE a stable and durable alternative to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear . . . * IMAGINE an electromagnetic Motor which runs cool and harnesses the elemental forces of the universe in complete accord with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics . . . * IMAGINE such a Motor powering the world --- every automobile, appliance, home, farm, factory, ship, and plane, at a FRACTION of the present cost of energy . . . * IMAGINE such a Motor enabling us to someday reach the stars --- safely and inexpensively . . . Such a technology now exists: *** THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN *** The A E (Arts Entertainment) Network aired a national Special entitled Conspiracies which featured the revolutionary technology of Joseph Newman. Joseph Newman has been featured on the CBS Evening News, The Tonight Show, ABC/CNN National News, LIFE Magazine, PBS's All Things Considered, in thousands of newspapers/ magazines across the world, and on hundreds of radio talk shows presenting his revolutionary technology. Better than 30 physicists, nuclear engineers, electrical engineers, and electrical technicians have signed Affidavits attesting to the validity of Joseph Newman's revolutionary invention: an electromagnetic Motor/Generator that could supply every America's home, farm, business, automobile, and appliance with electrical power at a fraction of the present cost and enable you to become energy independent. ** The future of the human race may be dramatically uplifted by the large-scale, commercial development of this invention. --- Dr. Roger Hastings, Principal Physicist UNISYS CORPORATION If the manner in which Joseph Newman conducted his experiments and the results were made known to the industrial or engineering community then, in my opinion, several companies and/or individuals possess the expertise and capabilities to construct the hardware required to fully exploit the apparent capability of his new concepts. --- Dr. Robert E. Smith, Chief, Orbital and Space Environment Branch George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA You have opened an area in Astrophysics which may revolutionize the magnetic energy problems which is now the most paramount problem in future energy and space travel. I do believe with proper research funds, the results would not only be a great financial boom to your financiers, but would lead to developments that will be practical and beneficial to all mankind and develop a new step in science. --- Dr. E. L. Moragne, MORAGNE RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CO. [Dr. Moragne was an electromagnetic pioneer in the development of the first atomic bomb.] Please let others know about these new videos! Thanks! NEWMAN ENERGY CORPORATION http://www.josephnewman.com/ For important information about the energy machine technology including TV interviews/reports with experts who have endorsed the technology: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086hl=en Joseph Nolfe, President, NECorp. (205) 835-9022
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Zero: the 911 investigation in ten segments
Israel is surrounded by enemies who hate it more than they hate us. In addition, Israel could not survive without our military protection and the money the taxpayers and the American Jews donate. The country is not energy independent and is not productive enough to be self- sufficient. Besides, Israel is much smaller than the US with much less resource to weather the financial storm. As the US becomes poorer, we will cutback on money given to Israel and other countries. Meanwhile, the oil producing countries surrounding Israel are getting stronger and are increasing their populations. Eventually, they will take their revenge and we will be too weak to stop them without using nuclear weapons. China and Russia would respond to such an action making it unproductive. In the game of chess, Bush has now put Israel and the US into a no win situation. Where a draw was possible before his moves, now the game will end with a check-mate. Ed On Sep 28, 2008, at 2:43 PM, R C Macaulay wrote: Looks like wez been in the businesss of making enemies. Another question.. .. in that we both have the same enemies... what makes us different from Israel? Richard Ed wrote, Who benefits? Russia - We are stretched too thin to respond to their actions. China- We need their money and are willing to sell our companies cheap. Military-Industrial-Complex- The bigger the threat, the more they make. Europe - The weaker we are, the less competition we are for them. International Corporations - The weaker the dollar, the more they make. Muslims countries - The weaker we are, the less able we are to counter their actions. iran - They will get the bomb because we are weaker. Who loses? Israel The Republican party and its philosophy. The Bush legacy. You and I Ed On Sep 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, R C Macaulay wrote: The common demoninator is the economy. When some group planned the destruction of the USA, our achilles heel is the economic model we have. Start a war on credit like LBJ did during Vietnam and Bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq. and simply stand back and watch. The question is.. who benefits and who profits?.. not the muslim nations, not Europe,not Africa or South America, not India, China or Russia.. ask yourself who is left. Richard
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
On Sep 29, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Stockholders have just voted. The bailout was extremely important to the financial health of the country, or so they apparently believe. --- NEWS ALERT from The Wall Street Journal Sept. 29, 2008 The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged more than 500 points as the the final votes were tallied in the bailout vote in the House and the bill appeared short of the votes needed to pass. The package, which would have marked the most dramatic federal intervention in the financial markets since the Great Depression, was finalized Sunday after days of exhaustive negotiations between lawmakers and the White House. Consider this, the administration that caused this and other corruptions used the fear of collapse in order to get the bailout passed. Their fear campaign failed but they can't now turn the fear off. Everyone is now sure the whole system will collapse, which it will thanks to how this administration has done its job. On the other hand, many people have good reason to believe that the $700B bailout was not the proper approach (note below). A better approach would have been to consider various other methods to solve the problem. These other methods were not considered and now have to be fought out in Congress, where logic is not commonly used. Eventually, some variation on the bailout will emerge, but not until many more people have lost their savings and their job. Ed Cash for Trash By Bill Bonner Bankruptcy of Neo-Capitalism, shouted a headline in Wednesday's Paris press. Scarcely since Hitler blew his brains out has the type been bigger or the contentment broader. Almost everyone everywhere is enjoying the show. Each headline brings more laughs. The financial markets give people neither what they expect nor what they want, but what they deserve. What a treat to see people getting it – good and hard. Near to home, that galling millionaire next door – many will take pleasure in seeing his portfolio of stocks marked down. Stocks for the long run, he used to say, smugly; the silly old coot will be dead before his stocks come back! He'll have to work until he drops dead, just like the rest of us. On Wall Street, the masters of the universe – who had the pay slips to prove it! – are now getting blown up by their own debt bombs. The top five firms on Wall Street were thought to be too big to fail. But Bear Stearns has been blown to smithereens. Lehman is exploding into small pieces. Merrill ducked and missed the blast. Then, the last big capitalist desperadoes – J.P. Morgan and Goldman – waved the white flag. They petitioned the government to allow them to become regulated, deposit taking banks! And George Bush will leave behind the biggest nationalization program in history. Surely, that's worth a snide chuckle. The takeover of Fannie and Freddie alone leaves half the country living in what are effectively, government-subsidized housing projects. Meanwhile, the coordinated takeover of Wall Street, put together by his apparatchiks, left even the hardened lefties at France's Liberation in shock and awe: This enormous statist intervention...is the work of the most ideological and extremist administration that the US has ever had. How heartwarming to see that the meddlers and world-improvers get a second wind. It's like driving around in a '33 Lincoln...or throwing rocks at the gendarmes in '68. The old, gray Bolshies feel young again! Impetuous! Brainless! And every capitalist is behind the bail out program too. All over the world, markets are out – state-sponsored meddling is in. Free market principles are fine – until prices start going down! And there's the breathtaking chutzpah of it! After proposing a $700 billion program, in which the government buys up Wall Street's mistakes – otherwise known as cash for trash – Henry Paulson says he had no choice: We did this to protect the taxpayer, said the former Goldman chief. Even Russia got into the act. New to counterfeit capitalism, it's getting the hang of it fast, pledging $20 billion in the fight to keep stock prices from falling to what they are really worth. Then, not be left behind in general hysterical absurdity, SEC honcho Christopher Cox announced a list of 799 financial stocks on which shorting is banned until Oct. 2nd. In Britain, the FSA's ban on shorting financial shares lasts until Jan 16. But Pakistan gets the King Canute Memorial Prize; by law in that benighted land, stocks can't go below their August 27th close. And what a bunch of numbskulls – Greenspan, Paulson and Bernanke! Every word they've said so far has been financial poison. Greenspan relaxed about house prices... reported the Financial Times in 2005. Most negatives in housing are probably behind us... said the same sage in October 2006. We believe the effect of the
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
On Sep 29, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Tell me something, is a president of the USA largely titular like a British monarch or do they have real power. Is it government by cabinet or leader-centric? Well, the President has real power in a few areas and has to get Congress to go along in others. Normally, the president can get his way, as Iraq demonstrated. At the present time, Bush is not trusted, not believed, and has only a few more months in office. This means his power is significantly reduced, except to produce mischief. Or in the case of the financial problem, the power to ignore a gaping wound until the patient is about to die, whereupon he panics. The government has a cabinet that is appointed by the president, which reflects his values and competence. The Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson is a member. Unfortunately, up to a few weeks ago, he thought the system was doing ok even though many experts saw the train wreak coming. As to whether Bush is responsible for this mess, the President sets the tone, the agenda and can stir up voters to get certain laws passed. This President set a tone of incompetence based on having the proper political or religious views, the agenda was designed to allow the market to do whatever it wanted, and the laws he pushed favored the rich and powerful. Now, people see the scam for what it was and are rebelling. Ed -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 September 2008 20:43 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout The people who nuked the deal are the people who do not trust the administration and who, in addition to listening to the voters, were able to hear what various economists are saying. Of course, it helps to be very conservative or very liberal. Thank heaven, there was enough independent thinking this time to not create another Iraq in the financial world. Ed On Sep 29, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: News stories I'm seeing make it sound like it was the conservative Republicans who nuked the deal. With Barney Frank as lead representative on the bill, in the end it was apparently, in some sense, a Democratic initiative(?) or at any rate it was certainly bi-partisan.
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
True, but the margin is by only one vote in the Senate the last time I looked. Nevertheless, neither party wants to take the rap for this. Fortunately, enough thinking people are resisting the proposal of the administration. Personally, I don't care what reason they use. The plan as written was seriously flawed and the modified version is like putting lipstick on a pig, not to cast any insults to a well known user of lipstick. Ed On Sep 29, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: The dems control the house and senate. They don't need a single republican vote to get anything they want! If the bill went down in flames it is because some of their own people thought it stank. The only reason they want republican votes is so they can pass some of the blame when it doesn't work. Jeff -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout News stories I'm seeing make it sound like it was the conservative Republicans who nuked the deal. With Barney Frank as lead representative on the bill, in the end it was apparently, in some sense, a Democratic initiative(?) or at any rate it was certainly bi-partisan.
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
Everyone agrees some kind of repair is needed. This is obvious. The issue is what form this repair should take. An increasing number of experts and ordinary people are realizing that the Paulson Plan is not form the repair should take. Unfortunately, the administration panicked and put together a plan in haste, which now is leading the agenda. It is hard to start from scratch, as is necessary. This process should have been started months ago when the problem became obvious rather than waiting until the patient was about to die. It just like a failure to use antibiotics in time, which now requires both legs to be amputated. The debate is now just how much of the legs should be taken to allow the patient to function in the future. Ed On Sep 29, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not understand economics, but Warren Buffett said this bailout is needed, and he is a smart cookie. So I worry that this, or something like it, is needed. Obama said: stay calm, because things are never smooth in Congress . . . There are going to be some bumps and trials and tribulations and ups and downs before we get this rescue package done, I'm confident that we are going to get there, but it's going to be a little rocky. I hope he is right that the bill will pass, and that it is a good idea to pass it. It does seem that the version of the bill that was voted on today was much better than the original. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
Actually, Bill Bonner shares your basic attitude toward government, except he is a better writer and has researched the issue in depth.. Ed On Sep 30, 2008, at 3:09 AM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Sure looks like hate speech to me… You sure you want these guys being leaders of the free world? I think the battle lines are clear; a battle between the good of freedom and the evil, lying, socialist control. When will they ever learn? Cash for Trash By Bill Bonner Bankruptcy of Neo-Capitalism, shouted a headline in Wednesday's Paris press. Scarcely since Hitler blew his brains out has the type been bigger or the contentment broader. Almost everyone everywhere is enjoying the show. Each headline brings more laughs. The financial markets give people neither what they expect nor what they want, but what they deserve. What a treat to see people getting it – good and hard. Near to home, that galling millionaire next door – many will take pleasure in seeing his portfolio of stocks marked down. Stocks for the long run, he used to say, smugly; the silly old coot will be dead before his stocks come back! He'll have to work until he drops dead, just like the rest of us. On Wall Street, the masters of the universe – who had the pay slips to prove it! – are now getting blown up by their own debt bombs. The top five firms on Wall Street were thought to be too big to fail. But Bear Stearns has been blown to smithereens. Lehman is exploding into small pieces. Merrill ducked and missed the blast. Then, the last big capitalist desperadoes – J.P. Morgan and Goldman – waved the white flag. They petitioned the government to allow them to become regulated, deposit taking banks! And George Bush will leave behind the biggest nationalization program in history. Surely, that's worth a snide chuckle. The takeover of Fannie and Freddie alone leaves half the country living in what are effectively, government-subsidized housing projects. Meanwhile, the coordinated takeover of Wall Street, put together by his apparatchiks, left even the hardened lefties at France's Liberation in shock and awe: This enormous statist intervention...is the work of the most ideological and extremist administration that the US has ever had. How heartwarming to see that the meddlers and world-improvers get a second wind. It's like driving around in a '33 Lincoln...or throwing rocks at the gendarmes in '68. The old, gray Bolshies feel young again! Impetuous! Brainless! And every capitalist is behind the bail out program too. All over the world, markets are out – state-sponsored meddling is in. Free market principles are fine – until prices start going down! And there's the breathtaking chutzpah of it! After proposing a $700 billion program, in which the government buys up Wall Street's mistakes – otherwise known as cash for trash – Henry Paulson says he had no choice: We did this to protect the taxpayer, said the former Goldman chief. Even Russia got into the act. New to counterfeit capitalism, it's getting the hang of it fast, pledging $20 billion in the fight to keep stock prices from falling to what they are really worth. Then, not be left behind in general hysterical absurdity, SEC honcho Christopher Cox announced a list of 799 financial stocks on which shorting is banned until Oct. 2nd. In Britain, the FSA's ban on shorting financial shares lasts until Jan 16. But Pakistan gets the King Canute Memorial Prize; by law in that benighted land, stocks can't go below their August 27th close. And what a bunch of numbskulls – Greenspan, Paulson and Bernanke! Every word they've said so far has been financial poison. Greenspan relaxed about house prices... reported the Financial Times in 2005. Most negatives in housing are probably behind us... said the same sage in October 2006. We believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector...will be likely limited... said Bernanke in March 2007. It's not a serious problem...I think it's going to be largely contained, added Paulson in April 2007. But these are the same numbskulls who now say they are saving capitalism from itself. Ah, there's the rub...amid all this giddy merriment is a serious threat. The feds have bailed out the bankers, the insurers, the mortgage lenders, and half of Wall Street. But who will bail out the feds? Since 1971, the world's money system rests on the dollar. And the dollar rests on nothing but faith, hope and the kindness of strangers. And while the full faith and credit of the United States of America is elastic, it can snap. Last week, the price of gold popped up $120 in two days. Then, on Monday, it added another $43. Oil gushed up 44% in the space of barely a week. Investors felt the geyser of liquidity coming from Washington and beat a retreat from the dollar. For the last 15 years, the U.S. money supply has grown about twice as fast
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
Well, for those who are still interested, the market is recovering nicely. However, while the stocks that are most at risk from the immediate problems are going up, the stocks that are expected to suffer from a recession are continuing downward. In other words, the basic market does not think the system is actually going to crash, but the recession is going to get worse regardless of what Congress does. Gold is waiting to see how much funny money is made by the government. It appears that once again Bush et al. have panicked and exaggerated the problem, at least that is what the market seems to believe. Ed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
You may be right. However, the government is not the only source of funds nor is the bailout the only money being supplied by the government. The panic in the public was caused by an advertised effort to get this huge source of money available so that the financial companies would not collapse. The original structure of the plan shows what they had in mind as their first choice, which was to reduce the loss to the industry. Even the name bailout gave away of their attitude. Now this has been watered down and the fix is not as attractive. Meanwhile, the government and private companies have handled the serious crashes of some weak banks. The argument now seems to be that the bailout will give more confidence so that the run on the banks would stop, a run that the panic sales pitch created. This is a different argument from that given initially. Meanwhile, the experts point out that the underlying problem could be fixed much easier and with less risk by helping people restructure their mortgages. This way, the value of the mortgage could be established and fewer would have to be foreclosed. The financial industry would then pick up the loss on the mortgages that could not be fixed. This idea is resisted by the industry because some companies would still collapse. Meanwhile, the Republicans did not support the bailout because they say their feelings were hurt by the truth instead of arguing that the repair structure needs to be changed. No wonder the government is in such bad shape. Ed On Sep 30, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: DJIA is up 232 points from the open, but it was down 750 points on Friday. According to the WSJ, Stocks staged a partial recovery Tuesday as investors hoped a revised financial rescue plan will emerge. In other words, the recovery, such as it has been so far, is apparently (as far as folks can judge) due to the widespread belief that Bailout Plan Version II is in the works and is likely to pass some time soon. Such assessments of the reasons for market moves tend to be a bit speculative, but I see no obvious reason to disbelieve this one. Edmund Storms wrote: Well, for those who are still interested, the market is recovering nicely. However, while the stocks that are most at risk from the immediate problems are going up, the stocks that are expected to suffer from a recession are continuing downward. In other words, the basic market does not think the system is actually going to crash, but the recession is going to get worse regardless of what Congress does. Gold is waiting to see how much funny money is made by the government. It appears that once again Bush et al. have panicked and exaggerated the problem, at least that is what the market seems to believe. I'm not sure that is a well founded remark. The market may very well believe things are every bit as bad as they appear to be, if not worse. However, many people also believe a new bailout is in the works, and they don't want to miss the boat if things are fixed up again by Friday. If the next attempt at a bailout also tanks, *then* we will see what the market really thinks of the situation. The European governments certainly seem to agree that things are very bad indeed. From Germany to Iceland governments are dumping huge amounts of capital into the financial system in an effort to avoid another Great Depression. The U.S. bailout package would *NOT* have been the biggest in the world on a per-capita basis if it had gone through -- as of this morning I believe that honor goes to Iceland, though Germany is right up there too. A lot of very smart and powerful people are extremely concerned about this -- it's not just some nonsense cooked up by George Bush, any more than global warming is all just some nonsense cooked up by Al Gore. (Though it's true that this mess could very well all be Bush's fault, in that he could have avoided it if he had exercised a shred of economic sense over the past eight years). Ed
Re: [Vo]:This American Life show about economic crisis
We now know how the system failed to work properly. How about applying a little simple logic to a few facts? Application of simple logic to the system a few years ago would have clearly predicted the outcome, which many people successfully did. These are the people who made sure they were not in a position to be hurt by the process. The bailout will also produce easily predictable consequences that need to be avoided by individuals. We can not change what is happening no matter how hard we complain. We can only protect ourselves and our families. 1. A huge amount of unfunded money is being pumped into the system. By some accounts, as much as 1.3 trillion dollars. As a result, the national debt is growing rapidly. 2. The government will continue to pump money into the system based on the fear of total collapse. As a result, this debt will grow. 3. Government income will go down because of the recession and because taxes will be lowered in order to buy votes and stimulate the economy. 4. Long term interest rates will rise as banks and foreign lenders demand more reward for the risk. 5. Inflation will increase as the price of food, gas and other goods increases. 6. As a result, stagflation will come again. The Obama administration will look a lot like the Carter administration. The solution, sell bonds and stocks, and buy gold. Ed On Oct 2, 2008, at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is kind of off-topic but also on topic. Here is a broadcast and transcript from the radio program This American Life. It explains the subprime mortgage fiasco more clearly than I have seen elsewhere: http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355 This resembles the Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g ) except that the interviews are real. Below is a fascinating segment of the transcript that illustrates 'the will to deceive oneself.' Bankers and loan officers deliberately set up procedures that to hide the truth from themselves. The procedures to check people's credit worthiness became more and more far-fetched and removed from reality. We see the same trends in arguments against cold fusion, as Mike Melich described: I see no value in anymore 'panels' of experts looking at this subject. The choice of the Terms of Reference and the choice of the panelist is likely to be in the hands of the Garwin's/Jasons and the ERAB/Bard groups who have thoroughly enjoyed seeing how successful they manage to avoid answering technical questions seriously or doing any homework that informs them or facing the possibility that they may have made an error. Here is the segment from the radio show transcript: . . . And so Mike [Garner] noticed that every month, the [credit check] guidelines were getting a little looser. Something called a stated income, verified asset loan came out, which meant you didn't have to provide paycheck stubs and w-2 forms, as they had in the past. You could simply state your income, as long as you showed that you had money in the bank. Mike Garner: The next guideline lower is just stated income, stated assets. Then you state what you make and state what's in your bank account. They call and make sure you work where you say you work. Then an accountant has to say for your field it is possible to make what you said you make. But they don't say what you make, just say it's possible that they could make that. Alex Blumberg: It's just so funny that instead of just asking people to prove what they make there's this theater in place of you have to find an accountant sitting right in front of me who could very easily provide a W2, but we're not asking for a W2 form, but we do want this accountant to say yeah, what they're saying is plausible in some universe. Mike Garner: Yeah, and loan officers would have an accountant they could call up and say Can you write a statement saying a truck driver can make this much money? Then the next one, came along, and it was no income, verified assets. So you don't have to tell the people what you do for a living. You don't have to tell the people what you do for work. All you have to do is state you have a certain amount of money in your bank account. And then, the next one, is just no income, no asset. You don't have to state anything. Just have to have a credit score and a pulse. Alex Blumberg: Actually that pulse thing. Also optional. Like the case in Ohio where 23 dead people were approved for mortgages. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:This American Life show about economic crisis
On Oct 2, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: 6. As a result, stagflation will come again. The Obama administration will look a lot like the Carter administration. It might resemble the New Deal, if things get worse and Obama is decisive. Or the Hoover administration if he is not. The crisis has begun before Obama takes office (or is even elected), so people will not blame him, at least in the initial stages. Of course it is still far from certain that he will be elected. The polls remain very close. An administration is shaped partly by the personality of the president. Obama is not a bit like Carter. The only president Obama resembles is Woodrow Wilson, it seems to me. Once a professor, always a professor. There are some big differences. Obama has low blood pressure, he is less starchy, and he is not bigoted against black people. (On that score, Wilson is probably spinning in his grave.) By the way, the world's richest man, Warren Buffett, again came out strongly in favor of the bailout. He is a liberal and no friend of Wall Street, and he saw the crisis coming long ago, so I trust his judgment in this matter. I still do not know what to make of the bailout, but I trust people like Buffett more than I trust U.S. senators or Pres. Bush, or Obama and McCain for that matter. See: You need to remember that Warren Buffett is heavily invested in the financial industry. Consequently, he is going to benefit from the bailout. In general, the people who will benefit are working very hard to get this bailout passed with all the advantages to them they can manage. This is only human nature, The bigger the panic, the more advantages they can get put in the bill. The people who care about the general welfare keep advising that congress slow down and study the details of this bill to make sure it is as advertised. Instead, there is a big push by people who will gain by getting this passed as quickly as possible. Coincidentally, the market goes down to make the point when the first attempt failed. Then the market recovered much of the loss without any obvious change in conditions. Now that it looks like the bill will pass, the previous trend downward is continuing. Apparently, the system is crumbling, which will continue even after the bill is passed. There is simply too much debt of all kinds that will not be paid as the recession deepens. The mortgage problem was only the catalyst. Meanwhile, the bailout bill will give certain people great power and advantage as the system goes down. In short, lifeboats are being constructed but too few are available to save the rest of us. Ed Ed http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/02/news/newsmakers/buffett.fortune/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:This American Life show about economic crisis
On Oct 2, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:Edmund Storms wrote:6. As a result, stagflation will come again. The Obama administrationwill look a lot like the Carter administration.It might resemble the New Deal, if things get worse and Obama is decisive. Or the Hoover administration if he is not. The crisis has begun before Obama takes office (or is even elected), so people will not blame him, at least in the initial stages.Of course it is still far from certain that he will be elected. The polls remain very close.An administration is shaped partly by the personality of the president. Obama is not a bit like Carter. The only president Obama resembles is Woodrow Wilson, it seems to me. Once a professor, always a professor. There are some big differences. Obama has low blood pressure, he is less starchy, and he is not bigoted against black people. (On that score, Wilson is probably spinning in his grave.)By the way, the world's richest man, Warren Buffett, again came out strongly in favor of the bailout. He is a liberal and no friend of Wall Street, and he saw the crisis coming long ago, so I trust his judgment in this matter. I still do not know what to make of the bailout, but I trust people like Buffett more than I trust U.S. senators or Pres. Bush, or Obama and McCain for that matter. See:http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/02/news/newsmakers/buffett.fortune/- JedAgora 5 Min Financial's Forecast provided this bit of information. Perhaps there is actually something for almost everyone, but not the actual people who need the help. Once again, money is being given away as if it has no long term consequences. People with power get the money and the rest of us pay the bill in higher cost of goods. This process has nothing to do with liberal or conservativephilosophy. It is pure theft. The process goes like this:I want to save the system so please vote for my bill.Sorry, I want something for the people who voted for me and pay my expenses.OK, what will you take to save the system.Here is my list.ThanksEdWhat started as a three-page “blank check” request for $700 billionto buy “toxic” assets on Wall Street, has now passed the Senate as a 451-page pork-laden piece of detritus.Iansifted through the table of contents for tax exemptions and picked out a few of his favorites:Sec. 101: Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal credits.Sec. 102: Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption amount.Sec. 201: Deduction for state and local sales taxes.Sec. 202: Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.Sec. 203: Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.Sec. 204: Additional standard deduction for real property taxes for nonitemizers.Sec. 205: Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes.Sec. 304: Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.Sec. 305: Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant improvements; 15-year straight-line cost recovery for certain improvements to retail space.Sec. 307: Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions of property.Sec. 308: Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.Sec. 309: Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.Sec. 310: Extension of mine rescue team training credit.Sec. 311: Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.Sec. 312: Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.Sec. 314: Indian employment credit.Sec. 315: Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations.Sec. 316: Railroad track maintenance.Sec. 317: Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.Sec. 318: Expensing of environmental remediation costs.Sec. 319: Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.Sec. 320: Extension of increased rehabilitation credit for structures in the Gulf Opportunity Zone.Sec. 321: Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.Sec. 322: Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.Sec. 323: Enhanced charitable deductions for contributions of food inventory.Sec. 324: Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventory.Sec. 325: Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.Sec. 401: Permanent authority for undercover operations [as related to tax provisions].Sec. 402: Permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities [as related to tax provisions].Sec. 501: $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.Sec. 502: Provisions related to film and television productions.Sec. 503: Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.Sec. 504: Income
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
Jed, I think you and Steve miss the main issue here. The discussions held on CMNS are not secret, but are private. Suppose I invite a group to my house to discuss cold fusion with the understanding that the discussion would not be made public. Would it be right for an uninvited person to learn what was said and print this in the newspaper? Privacy is valued and respected in this country as much as freedom of the press. How does a person protect privacy on the internet? The kind of secrecy that Steve objects to as a journalist is that which leads to policy or decisions that affect the general public. I agree with Steve when this is the issue. A private discussion between random colleagues does not have this characteristic. We are not setting or implementing policy. Our intent is to discuss science that is still poorly understood and perhaps wrong without having the ideas taken out of context, as would be the case if the information were made public. Is not this effort worth protecting? Ed On Oct 3, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I think this dispute is overblown, and kind of silly on both sides. I see no harm in Krivit discussing leaked messages. The messages do not seem particularly important and I can't imagine why they are secret in the first place. On the other hand, the CMNS people can set any rules they want, and their rules do not interfere with Krivit's freedom or anyone else's. Steven Krivit wrote: It is true that the CMNS list has a rule about secrecy. However, this rule is unjust and ill-founded. I think it is ill-founded, but I see nothing unjust about it. They can have any rules they like. The CMNS list secrecy rule is a constraint on my personal civil liberties as well as an obstruction of free press. Nonsense. It is does not constrain your liberties. You don't have to be a member. As you can tell, the people (not just one) who are leaking list messages to me . . . In that case, McKubre should be upset with those people, not with Krivit. . . . do not believe that it is in the best interests of this scientific society to be secretive. I, and perhaps they too, do not believe it is in the best interests for people who are providing information to this community via the CMNS list be shielded from the media spotlight. I agree that secrecy is not in the best interests of the scientific society. That's why I quit CMNS. But it is for them to decide. People are allowed to act contrary to their own interests. Free speech and the freedom of the press are fundamental values in a democratic society. Even people in the U.S. government are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. That is because it is the government. That has nothing to do with private conversations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science
So, if I understand you correctly, privacy has no rights in the US nor on the internet. I'm not talking about secrets. This is a false issue, a straw-man Steve created. I'm talking about being able to discuss science without having to worry about whether parts of the discussion will be extracted and used to make public pronouncements that are not correct and not intended. I agree, journalists are valuable when they reveal information that is important for the public to know. Discussions on CMNS are not that important. What is important is an expectation of not having to worry about statements taken out of context or used for other purposes. Steve wants the right to publish excerpts from these discussions. Normally, a good journalist will honor a request that information not be published or at least clarify what is to be published to be sure it is complete and correct. I did not get the impression from Steve he is willing to do this. The issue is with Steve, not with people sending Steve copies of the discussions. Steve would be welcome to join the list if he agreed not to publish the information without permission. Instead, he resigns from the list and then has someone else send the information to him. This contrived arrangement does not change Steve's obligation to honor the rules. In fact, such an arrangement is a more serious breach of trust. Now the action becomes a conspiracy to avoid rules that Steve finds inconvenient. The basic issue is trust. Do we trust Steve or do we not trust him? If not, as you say, such people are eventually frozen out. Ed On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Jed, I think you and Steve miss the main issue here. The discussions held on CMNS are not secret, but are private. Suppose I invite a group to my house to discuss cold fusion with the understanding that the discussion would not be made public. Would it be right for an uninvited person to learn what was said and print this in the newspaper? It would be impolite, or ungentlemanly, as McKubre puts it. But not morally wrong. As long as the uninvited person is not trespassing, or wiretapping your house, he has done nothing wrong. If you don't want uninvited people to eavesdrop on your conversations, you should throw them out of the house. In this case, you should expel people from the CMNS list if you feel that strongly about it. I don't know how you would track them down, but that's your problem. The classic method in intelligence work (and Washington politics) is to spread different versions of the story and see which one surfaces. If one of your guests discusses the conversation with Krivit and he publishes it, Krivit is annoying but less at fault. Your guest is the main culprit. If I read what Krivit wrote, I discuss it with yet another person I am several times removed and not at fault. Privacy is valued and respected in this country as much as freedom of the press. How does a person protect privacy on the internet? You can't. Don't put things on the Internet that you want to keep private. It is like posting them on a billboard in Times Square. Never tell dozens of people something that you want to keep confidential. Don't tell anyone! As they say in the Mafia, two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. We are not setting or implementing policy. Our intent is to discuss science that is still poorly understood and perhaps wrong without having the ideas taken out of context, as would be the case if the information were made public. Is not this effort worth protecting? I see absolutely no reason to protect it -- no benefit whatever. Keeping it secret runs counter to the traditions of academic science. On the contrary it seems to me that the more people you bring into the conversation, the better. However if you want to protect it that is certainly your right. It is also your right to expel whoever it was that leaked the info to Krivit, if you can find them. I think that would be a big fat waste of time, and a tempest in a teacup, but it is your right to do it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
Has any one noticed that Palin cannot complete a logical thought to its logical end without injecting random ideas? This way of thinking is similar to the unscripted Bush. Do we need another Saturday Night Live character? Ed On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Palin also states that she represents Joe Six-Pack, as if the admission should be considered endearing, a badge of authenticity and sincerity. I dunno about others, but it's been my experience that after I consumed a six-pack my views on just about any topic should NOT be represented. Now that you mention it, Palin did sound inebriated: . . . We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain's call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse. And the colleagues in the Senate weren't going to go there with him. So we have John McCain to thank for at least warning people. And we also have John McCain to thank for bringing in a bipartisan effort people to the table so that we can start putting politics aside, even putting a campaign aside, and just do what's right to fix this economic problem that we are in. It is a crisis. It's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street. And now we have to be ever vigilant and also making sure that credit markets don't seize up. That's where the Main Streeters like me, that's where we would really feel the effects. . . . Not quite as bad as the Courin interview, that was repeated nearly verbatim on SNL: PALIN: But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the -- oh, it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is part of that. Here is the SNL version: FEY AS PALIN: Like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this. We're saying, 'Hey, why bail out Fanny and Freddie and not me?' But ultimately what the bailout does is, help those that are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy to help...uh...it's gotta be all about job creation, too. Also, too, shoring up our economy and putting Fannie and Freddy back on the right track and so healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending...'cause Barack Obama, y'know...has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans, also, having a dollar value meal at restaurants. That's gonna help. But one in five jobs being created today under the umbrella of job creation. That, you know...Also... This is not only the most critical election of our generation, it is also the most hilarious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Off Topic Threads
I see this characteristic in many faith-based people. Having faith reduces the strain on the logical brain and allows a person who is lacking logic to function. The rules and decisions are made by the religious leaders. However, we see in Bush what havoc a nonlogical thinker can create. Unfortunately, the nonlogical thinker does not have the ability to make the logical connection between Bush and the result. In the process of this election, we are seeing the population separate itself into faith-based (or emotion-based) and logic-based thinking. Bush and Palin seem to be about 10% logic, McCain seems about 50% logic while Obama is nearly 95% logic. We shall see which form of thinking has the genetic upper-hand in the population. Ed On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Has any one noticed that Palin cannot complete a logical thought to its logical end without injecting random ideas? This way of thinking is similar to the unscripted Bush. Very similar. I have not seen this before. Bush and Palin are both smart in many ways, but they are incurious, unorganized and incapable of expressing coherent thought. Also, you might say they have no respect for facts. Palin was described in the Atlanta Journal the other day: . . . many Alaska political observers have advised against underestimating her. Several former rivals have pointed to her uncanny ability to make emotional connections with voters, even when she can't answer a question. Andrew Halcro, who lost the governor's race to Palin in 2006, wrote in the Anchorage Daily News last week that she was unintimidated by his mastery of policy details. 'Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers and yet when asked questions you spout off facts, figures and policies and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of that matter?' ' he recalls Palin telling him after a debate. . . . http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2008/10/01/tucked.html The Bush administration's contempt for facts was made famous by this quote: The aide [who was upset with the author] said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html This contempt for facts is typical of anti-cold fusion people as well. See also Altemyer's web site on Authoritarian thought processes: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Freedom of Information and Open Science
On Oct 4, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Ed, You would demonstrate your intention to communicate without hostility by refraining from suggesting what you think I do or do not understand. Rather than continue a polemic with me, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me your view as to why you think it is beneficial for the CMNS list to be, by default, protected from the media? First of all, the CMNS list is not protected from the media. The media can, as I explained previously, learn of anything that is said. If a reporter wants to publish anything, he can do this and we cannot stop him. You, on the other hand are not the media and you are not any ordinary reporter. You are trying to help the field. In addition, you have important friendships and relationships in the field based on trust and respect. When you propose to act like an ordinary reporter, you damage that trust. As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is wrong without that information being made public. Such public disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my concerns addressed so that the work could be improved in the future. On the other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people about my work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences that a group provides. But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross' problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear. An ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a broad range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced approach. I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm being hostile. Normally, I would send this as a private response, since it does not concern anyone on Vortex. However, you sent this to me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to people who find this exchange unimportant. Best regards, Ed Thanks, Steve At 12:06 PM 10/4/2008, you wrote: Steve, let me make myself completely clear without any hostility being intended. The CMNS discussion is considered by the members to be private. Although I and everyone involved agrees, there is no way this intention can be enforced, a fact about which you do not need to remind us. In addition, the site is not closed to the press. Anyone, yourself included, can join if they agree to the rules. The rule is that nothing will be published without permission. You or anyone could seek permission and no doubt get such permission if they were trusted by the person from whom permission was requested. In other words, nothing is secret, nothing is being hidden, and the press can get involved if they use a little common courtesy. In your case, you say you will not abide by the rules, you resigned from the group, and then had other people send you the discussion. In addition, you insist that the group is attempting to interfere with freedom of the press. This approach simply shows that you do not understand the situation and want to continue a confrontation. If instead, you had said that you understood the wish and need for privacy, even though it is unenforceable, and would request permission to publish any of the discussion, then the issue would have dissappeared and you would be welcomed into the discussion. No doubt, most people would then give you permission to publish their discussion. Ludwik has gotten permission on many occasions using this approach. I hope I made clear why you got the response you did. The issue has nothing to do with any hostility or any lack of your support for the CNMS community. The issue is ONLY about your stated attitude about publishing the CMNS discussions without permission. Regards, Ed On Oct 4, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:33:29 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science At 07:34 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote: and this is cross posted here becuase? Thanks for asking. The Vortex list is, in my opinion, a group of fairly enlightened and aware group of individuals who have an interest in CMNS and free speech. Here's the background: I do not have a problem with McKubre and there is no message of
Re: [Vo]:Freedom of Information and Open Science
On Oct 4, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Hi Ed, Thanks for your reply. As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is wrong without that information being made public. Such public disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my concerns addressed so that the work could be improved in the future. But Ed, that makes no sense at all. Why on earth would you send something potentially embarrassing to an Internet list which is so loosely regulated as the CMNS list instead of sending the email directly to the person and only that person? Well Steve, a compromise has to be made. If the issue I had with another person were serious, I would, as you suggest, use private e- mail. However, a discussion within a group can frequently get more information to the person and in a more acceptable form than a private discussion. We all count on privacy being maintained by no one outside of the group taking an interest in what is said. You have taken an interest. As a result, you have created an issue we have to resolve. On the other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people about my work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences that a group provides. I certainly see and agree with that benefit of the list. But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross' problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear. What policy was that? The policy I'm referring to is to publish information that is potentially damaging to an individual. While I agree, some branches of journalism do this for a living and they do a great service when the information impacts on us all. Nevertheless, not all information has a general impact, hence does not need to be made public. Generally, a good reporter makes a judgement based on the desired result. An ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a broad range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced approach. Careful and nuanced approach: You mean like what you told me on July 19? Yes, this is one consideration. However, each potential public revelation will have different nuances, some of which are important and some can be ignored. I can't anticipate all possibilities. If publication is done with permission of the individual, the nuance no longer matters. Your article about George and later about Macy created an impression that you are more concerned with the 'truth' than with people. This makes people uncertain about who might be next. Consequently, you need to be more careful in how you reveal the truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and so well accepted, a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you any problem. I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm being hostile. Well, I'm not sure about your personal assessment of who and what I am (media,) - I will need to ponder that a bit - but in general I do appreciate your polite message. Normally, I would send this as a private response, since it does not concern anyone on Vortex. However, you sent this to me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to people who find this exchange unimportant. I think this is a valuable topic to be discussed on Vortex since it pertains to some key aspects of how CMNS is reported. I for one, benefit from the ideas and critiques from the members of this list. And I certainly have nothing to hide. I respect this approach and hope to continue the discussion. Perhaps to save other people from the need to delete this, we continue in private. Best regards, Ed Best regards, Steve
Re: [Vo]:An astonishingly simple model of Presidential elections
On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Here's a model developed back around 1980, which was back-tested against every Presidential election back to 1860, and which has correctly predicted every election since it was developed (that's six out of six predictions made in advance and born out): http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Political/PDFs/Keys_forecast_aug_2007_apsa_by_lichtman.pdf or here it is made tiny (but note that this is a PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/45zk8e Apparently, since some time last summer (since before Hillary dropped out, in fact), it's been predicting a Democratic win this time around. Note, though, that this predicts the *popular* vote, not the electoral college vote. So, for instance, it predicted a Gore win, which was a correct prediction if we just look at the popular vote. The model consists of 13 assertions; if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be re-elected. Interestingly, it is based almost entirely on actions taken by the incumbent government, with one (1) question devoted to the personality of the challenger. What's more, it takes account of no opinion poll results, and no takes account of *no* actions taken by the opposition! And, no, it's not a hack, or a joke; as far as I can tell it's completely serious, and its track record is very surprising. Here's an excerpt from the paper, in case anyone has trouble with the PDF: Here are the assertions (the model consists of the assertions, plus some clearer definitions). Again, the prediction is that, if at least 7 are true, the incumbent party will be reelected; otherwise the opposition will win: = [begin quote] Well, let's play a game. Here are my answers. I get 2 assertions that are true. Looks like the Republicans are going down big-time. Ed The Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins. KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. No, the incumbent party lost seats. KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. No, there was a serious contest KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. No KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. Yes, there is no serious challenge. KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. No, the economy is in recession KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. No, the real growth is less. KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Yes, very major changes are effected. KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. No, there is unrest. KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. No, the incumbent has lots of scandal. KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. No, there have been major failures. KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. No, no major success has been achieved. KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Mixed, a national hero, yes; charismatic, no KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Mixed, charismatic, yes; a national hero, no
[Vo]:a clarification
To any one who might be interested, Steve quoted me in the latest issue of NET as follows: For example, LENR researcher Ed Storms, retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, recently discouraged me from reporting all of the key facts of LENR research. He wrote this to me in an e-mail recently: “You need to be more careful in how you reveal the truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and so well-accepted that a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you any problem.” The conclusion that Steve drew is not correct as I stated to Steve in a recent e-mail. Steve, The following statement from the latest issue of NET is not correct. I did not at any time discourage you from reporting ALL KEY FACTS about LENR. For you to get this impression is an example of your inability to accurately report what I say to you and is why I do not want anything I say to you quoted by you. The context of my statement was your report about Marianne Macy and the problems you created for yourself in not being sensitive to the context of your reporting. At the very least, I suggest you check with people to be sure you understand what they are telling you rather than distort your reporting to fit your own agenda. You can be a service, as you intend, if you are accurate in reporting the intent of a comment. In this case, you supplied your own interpretation of my intent, which was not correct. I attempted to encourage you to be sensitive to how you report facts about the subject, not to discourage you from reporting ALL KEY FACTS. I hope you see the difference. Ed
Re: [Vo]:How to steal an election with a Diebold machine
On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Whoa - Do you think the Republicans are not out to steal the election if they could? Why them and not the Dems? In this case, the owner of Diebold was a strong supporter of the Republicans. This requires the Democrats to use other methods because their people did not built the machines. I do not think either party has a monopoly on dishonesty or dirty tricks. No, but the Republicans have shown a greater tendency to use such tricks in recent times because they could get away with doing this. The issue is not who is more honest, because both parties are equally corrupt. The issue is what will happen during this election. The Republicans are still operating under the moral principles of Carl Rove, which makes them more likely to go dirty. Now that the machine has been reversed engineered, etc. and done so at Universities - (where there is a decided liberal bias) I would actually suspect that it would be far more likely that the bad- apples among young Dems would try to steal votes - Perhaps ... and might even use the assumption that Diebold was possibly at blame in Ohio, years ago for the other side to either get revenge or to play a kind of sneaky double-cross. Now we are talking about karma. Ed I know lots of IT professionals and programmers, and can say absolutely and without question that most of them are strongly for Obama in this state. The boss may be for McCain, or the guy who signs the checks, and that creates an unusual situation. This may not be true elsewhere, but an election official who allowed the memory card in a machine to be switched, even if it was supposed to benefit his choice - could never really know who it might favor in the end .
Re: [Vo]:How to steal an electrion
On Oct 19, 2008, at 12:36 AM, thomas malloy wrote: Jed Rothwell opined; It is utterly absurd for McCain or any other politician to cite ACORN as a threat to democracy The Acorn people have gone out of their way to register people who don't have a right to vote. I don't understand why the Debold system doesn't have a paper based electronic system, like we do in Minnesota. But it's clear to those of us on the right, that the Democrat's agenda is to win, and the law be damned. The right wing blogisphere has been all other the Acorn matter, and energizing the base is a good thing. Another example of this is Hugh Hewitt's book, It It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat. You have to understand that as much as you fear a Republican victory, we fear a Democratic victory. Well, General Powell does not fear a Democratic victory when he just endorsed Obama. I would like to know how many lies and dirty tricks a candidate must use, and how much damage to the country the policies of the Republican party must cause for you to not fear a Democratic victory? Certainly, the imagined damage Obama and the Democrats might cause could not be worse than the real damage caused by the Republicans. Does reality no longer count in your thinking? Ed --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the catalyst required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the Reney nickel? Ed On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:00 AM, OrionWorks wrote: From Mike Carrell: Remember this: Raynal-Ni is a trade name of Grace. In the BLP reactor, it is a catalyst in a chemical system producing NaH, which is the catalyst in the energy reaction. Mills is very explicit in stating that only hydrogen is a consumeable in the reaction, producing hydrinos. All else is recoverable in a regeneration step. The material supplied to Rowan by BLP for their test was from another source, not Grace. Why so much is needed is not clear to me at all. BLP is only at the beginning of the design of a production version of the process. Mike Carrell This from Wiki on the properties of Raney Nickel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel Of particular interest to me was what's stated in the last (forth paragraph) in regards to how Raney Nickel reacts to the introduction of Hydrogen. ... Properties Macroscopically Raney nickel looks like a finely divided gray powder. Microscopically, each particle of this powder looks like a three-dimensional mesh, with pores of irregular size and shape of which the vast majority are created during the leaching process. Raney nickel is notable for being thermally and structurally stable as well has having a large BET surface area. These properties are a direct result of the activation process and contribute to a relatively high catalytic activity. During the activation process, aluminium is leached out the NiAl3 and Ni2Al3 phases that are present in the alloy, while most of the aluminium that remains does so in the form of NiAl. The removal of aluminium from some phases but not others is known as selective leaching. It has been shown that the NiAl phase provides the structural and thermal stability to the catalyst. As a result the catalyst is quite resistant to decomposition (breaking down, commonly known as aging).[3] This resistance allows Raney nickel to be stored and reused for an extended period; however, fresh preparations are usually preferred for laboratory use. For this reason commercial Raney nickel is available in both active and inactive forms. The surface area is typically determined via a BET measurement using a gas that will be preferentially adsorbed on metallic surfaces, such as hydrogen. Using this type of measurement, it has been shown that almost all the exposed area in a particle of the catalyst has nickel on its surface.[2] Since nickel is the active metal of the catalyst, a large nickel surface area implies that there is a large surface available for reactions to occur simultaneously, which is reflected in an increased catalyst activity. Commercially available Raney nickel has an average nickel surface area of 100 m² per gram of catalyst.[2] A high catalytic activity, coupled with the fact that hydrogen is absorbed within the pores of the catalyst during activation, makes Raney nickel a useful catalyst for many hydrogenation reactions. Its structural and thermal stability (i.e., the fact that it does not decompose at high temperatures) allows its use under a wide range of reaction conditions. Additionally, the solubility of Raney nickel is negligible in most common laboratory solvents, with the exception of mineral acids such as hydrochloric acid, and its relatively high density (between 6 and 7 g/cm³) also facilitates its separation off a liquid phase after a reaction is completed. ** Of course, theWiki description reveals no useful clues as to how hydrogen, when introduced and subsequently absorbed, is presumed to transform into hydrinos. At present I keep speculating that key components to the design of a BLP reactor chamber might consist of a cylinder containing a series of internal turbine blades, (possibly spinning in opposite directions) at high RPM speeds in order to keep the RN power in a constant agitated state. I wonder if such a configuration would help prevent the powder from clumping together as well as to the sides of the chamber. Of course, such a design consumes valuable energy in order to keep the turbine blades spinning. The $64 question: Would such a configuration consume all or more of the excess energy generated from the formation of hydrinos? It would not surprise me if some of BLP's RD engineers are looking very closely at various turbine designs for useful clues in turbulence characteristics and gas flow dynamics. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
Jones, While speculation is underway, I would like to add my own. The Mills criteria for a catalyst is the energy that is required to remove an electron from a level to infinity, i.e. the ionization potential. However, this can only occur in a gas. In a solid, the electron never goes to infinity. Consequently, the Mills criteria does not apply. Instead, Mills has to find a catalyst in which a transition between a stable level and an energy near the conduction band is equal to the required energy. The energy used to make this kind of transition is impossible to predict. As a result, success is based on trial and error, much like cold fusion. Suppose the Ni in contact with NaH provides a place for the electron released from NaH to go that then gives the energy change the right value. After all, NaH does not have a conduction band and the electron could not find a way out of the local system without a conductor with a conduction band being present. If this is the explanation, any finely divided conductor would work, for example finely divided Pd. This idea would suggest that nanosized Pd in a cold fusion environment is only required to take the released electron away from the actual catalyst, which has not been identified in this case. What do you think about this idea? Ed On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed I'm confused. I was under the impression that the NaH was the catalyst required to form the hydrino. If this is true, what is the role of the Raney nickel? First - there are two very distinct ways to look at this situation. It is somewhat logical to believe, as does Mike Carrell, that Mills got everything right -- and that the energy anomaly he discovered is explainable based precisely on application his CQM theory, and that the theory rules, and that no amount of good fortune is present. This is why Mike constatnly wants people to study Mills theory as if it were gospel. If that is true, then the nickel probably serves only as a proton conductor and catalyst to remove the proton from the sodium. IOW - those who are strict BLP advocates cannot imagine the situation where Mills could have succeeded, though good fortune alone - and found an experimental anomaly but that it is one that his theory does not explain. However, that is merely their interpretation, logical as that may seem, and until more is known - most of us would agree that Mills should be given the benefit of the doubt. Which is not to say that other avenues should not be investigated at the same time. An alternate interpretation is that Mills found a robust energy anomaly and is trying to shoehorn it into a theory which itself is suspect; but which theory is partially correct, and close enough to make it seem like it works to explain the anomaly when it really only goes part of the way. If this alternative interpretation is eventually found to be valid, and it is a long-shot - then the nickel may serve a similar purpose and role as does palladium in LENR, and in fact the excess heat may be nuclear and not the result of redundant ground states. After all, as far back as 1990-1991 others besides Mills were finding excess energy in nickel light water LENR. Personally - I think the truth may be somewhere in between and that redundant ground states are necessary precursor states to low energy nuclear reactions - yet the hydrino states alone are neither endothermic or nor very energetic by themself -- which is why Mills could never get it right with his initial choice of catalysts (sodium was not favored till recently) and that most of the excess heat is coming from LENR. Since this interpretation pleases almost no one but moi, it will probably not be tested for some time. OTOH it would be very easy to falsify by looking for the smoking gun. Therefore - I will name the exact 'make and model' of that smoking gun. There are two excellent candidate low energy reactions where redundant ground states mimic a neutron partially - and end up adding a proton to another nucleus without the expected radioactivity. The evidence shoud be there if they look for these changes and these transmutation elements. One reaction would be 23Na + (hy) -- 24Mg. Where the pseudo-neutron adds a proton and transmutes sodium into magnesium with very little radioactivity - but there could be energetic betas and soft x-rays. One big difference over a neutron reaction is that the beta-electron is not a decay product - since- it never participates at all, except to serve the purpose of allowing the proton to get into the range of the nuclear strong force and perhaps another QM 'trick' or two. The other would be 62Ni + (hy) -- 63Cu. These reactions could easily be hidden since neither transmuted nucleus is radioactive. Are there QM problems with coupling and conservation of spin, you ask? ... more
