Dear Vo.,
A cut and cut... and some paste, comment:
GENERAL
In general,as there may be a "comment" it seems as though the
"armchair" science community find a difficulty in and of a responce,
rejoinder...
SO: As a favor.... I ask PLEASE to RSVP this little note ....
And rejoin with "not an arm chair guesikation" but some real
stuff.....
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Here is are a critique.... and question '''grouping"
////////////////////
On 4/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
vortex-digest Digest Volume 2007 : Issue 202
Q:
However on a more practical note
".....eve that Free Energy is possible with solid state electrical equipment
where the energy is either created or tapped from a vast unseen reservoir.
....""
How about a well known and well understood "vast" body of energy" ???
On 4/3/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
Naturally, I have mixed feelings about nuclear power. I think everyone on
> Vortex does -- this is a technically knowledgable group
".......knowledgable is a word that should have been clubbed to death
years ago
when it started crawling about like the late Lon Cheney..."
I may be could be
could be wrong ..........
! And if only they *had* honored the truth,
:::::::::::::: Who is are the ""they"" ........
YOU... the arm chair commenters..... ARE the THEY
of re-occuring time after time, and being covered up.
stupid thing to do.
- Jed
Thomas wrote..
He did mention a theory of everything. I searched it, as far as I can
tell, it applies to particle physics. He said that a researcher at the U
of M is working on it.
---------
UH..... the """Theory of everything"" means:
This is the guess ..of everything....
SO.....
BBGB ................. Does ANYONE wish to share the Anything of
Anything
???? M HMMMMMMM ???
Jed wrote..
Engineers are supposed to tell the truth!
JED------>>> I wish you would reveal any work you
YOU as a person have done.... Please ....
=============================
.. ask any college kid.
=====================
I wish any of you WOULD ask a real college kid... about the nature of the
text on Vo.
As little does a royal lady dream
That Rumpelstiltskin is my name!"
Alternatively, you know what they say about flying... It's really
not too dangerous when you're in the air. The only problems are when
you are near the ground....
I do not worry about the danger. I just do not like being crammed
into a small, smelly cabin with bad food, air pressure changes, and
all these invasive procedures against terrorism. The latest invasive
procedure is to look at you naked with an x-ray machine. See:
http://www.slate.com/id/2160977/
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/24/us/24scan.jpg
I like to get up, stroll around, buy a cuppa java, look out the
window and see something . . . The fast trains in France and Japan
are great. If I could go all the way to Japan (6870) by fast train in
19 hours, I would never take a 14-hour flight. It is a shame they
cannot make trains run on water.
What I would really like to experience is a flight on a Zeppelin.
- Jed
Rhong Dhong wrote:
It's no longer possible to have something like that in the US. One
suicide bomber will be all it takes to justify turning the screws some
more.
The commute will then include the need for each passenger to go
through a search . . .
Not a problem. It would take a huge bomb to destroy a fast train, or
make it derail. Much bigger than it takes to destroy an airplane. Of
course a small bomb would kill some people, but it would be no worse
than an attack in a shopping mall. We are not going to set up
searches at every shopping mall or other crowded place. Even the
Israelis do not do that, and they have much more to worry about than
Americans.
Note that Amtrak trains already limit the number of bags, and they do
have a rudimentary search. The French and Japanese trains do not.
If anything, concerns about terrorism will increase the appeal of trains.
- Jed
Jed sez:
...
I like to get up, stroll around, buy a cuppa java, look
out the window and see something . . . The fast trains
in France and Japan are great. If I could go all the way
to Japan (6870) by fast train in 19 hours, I would never
take a 14-hour flight. It is a shame they cannot make
trains run on water.
What I would really like to experience is a flight
on a Zeppelin.
- Jed
So would I.
Not all that long ago I saw a wonderful article (I think it was published in
either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics) on the conceptual design of a
heavier than air "zeppelin" using 21st century state of the art technology.
I think it was powered by a combination of solar cells and rechargeable
batteries powering a series of electric props positioned along the sides.
(Come to think of it, with NanoSolar's "printed" flexible solar film
technology just around the corner, I think it's an even better bet.) It
looked like a very FAT blimp filled with helium. The beauty of the concept
was that when you cut the power it would simply float back to the ground, or
body of water for that matter. Only when the electric props were actively
engaged would there be enough air lift to get it off the ground - and on to
infinity!
The conceptual images indicated to me that there would be sufficient
passenger space (particularly on the observational deck) to make one feel as
if they were strolling about on a cruse ship. What a view! Think "The Fifth
Element" and you get the picture. No warp drives, however, at least not in
the current model. I think it cruses at around 100 - 150 MPH.
I suspect the only thing holding them back are the old unjustified
Hindenburg fears. The only concern I would personally harbor would be how it
would negotiate its substantial girth through nasty cold fronts and other
bad weather.
Regardless, I'd love to see them frolicking above.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com <http://www.orionworks.com/>
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a form of
pollution. In the long term, this may benefit cold fusion, for the
reasons explained by Felix Kramer of the CalCars plug-in hybrid group:
"The Supreme Court has ruled that greenhouse gases are polluting
emissions subject to regulation by the US Environmental Protection
Agency. As a result, new cars in the relatively near future are going
to have to emit much lower CO2 than they do now. This adds to the
pressures on the auto industry to end business as usual thinking,
and, we hope, start building "good enough" PHEVs. It adds to the
momentum to fuel cars from renewable low-carbon sources.
This ruling sets the stage for the EPA to approve the waiver
necessary for California's first Global Warming Bill (AB1493, 2002)
to go into effect. That bill requires automakers to begin reducing
GHGs from cars beginning in 2009, with
reductions reaching 30% in 2016 . . ."
This may turn out to be one of the most important events in the
history of environmentalism.
Also in California, Gov. Schwarzenegger has turned out to be
remarkably friendly toward environmentalism, and also an effective
governor. This is a pleasant surprise to me.
- Jed
I wrote:
Not a problem. It would take a huge bomb to destroy a fast train, or
make it derail. Much bigger than it takes to destroy an airplane.
One of the reasons electric trains are safer is because they do not
explode as easily as airplanes do. They do not carry volatile fuel.
Most aircraft accident victims die from smoke inhalation or fire,
after crash landings.
Even if the train is derailed, because a modern train car has a very
strong structure and the passengers are likely to survive.
The high-speed train tracks in France are at ground level. I think
the Japanese Shinkansen elevated train tracks are better. In the U.S.
there is a significant risk of striking deer and other wildlife at
ground level. Not just deer; last year I was driving in a hilly part
of eastern Pennsylvania when a large black bear bounded across the
road in front of me. Both of us were shook up.
- Jed
On 4/3/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The high-speed train tracks in France are at ground level. I think
the Japanese Shinkansen elevated train tracks are better.
True, but vastly more expensive in the US. In Nippon, concrete is
much cheaper than dirt. :-)
Terry
They'll just change emit more CO instead :-) .
-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:25 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Supreme Court ruling may ultimately benefit cold fusion
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a form of
pollution. In the long term, this may benefit cold fusion, for the
reasons explained by Felix Kramer of the CalCars plug-in hybrid group:
"The Supreme Court has ruled that greenhouse gases are polluting
emissions subject to regulation by the US Environmental Protection
Agency. As a result, new cars in the relatively near future are going
to have to emit much lower CO2 than they do now...
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Rhong Dhong wrote:
It's no longer possible to have something like that in the US. One
suicide bomber will be all it takes to justify turning the screws
some more.
The commute will then include the need for each passenger to go
through a search . . .
Not a problem. It would take a huge bomb to destroy a fast train, or
make it derail. Much bigger than it takes to destroy
On the contrary, all it would take is a small shaped charge on the
track. It would turn all that speeding mass into a very sympathetic target.
--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html <http://usfamily.net/dialup.html> -
$8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
