TheEEStory.com

News on the Greek Gov't tests from Ny Teknik:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/ene...

"Alexandros Xanthoulis, representative of the investors...said that two of the seven international groups have already carried out their tests and that the last of those tests is scheduled for late March. He did not say when or if the test results will be published."

Last edited Wed, 29 Feb 2012, 10:11am by Kahuna

Y_Po wrote:

seslaprime wrote:

nice theories folks, but still nothing of substance.

That's all you have to say?

How about presenting your theories as to why Rossi so active in giving interviews and demonstrations?

Obvious, free advertising to sell eCats. He purportedly has a 10,000 waiting list of potential clients for the home eCat and has spent nothing on marketing. I'm still an agnostic on the science, but the advertising budget to support sales (if there really are any) is the best possible - ZERO.

There is a very simple fix here. Just redefine "EES" to mean something more generic relating to advanced electrical storage (perhaps B can sponsor a contest or we can have nominations followed by voting), do a nice comprehensive article on the state of R&D in the field and the new broader-minded theEEStory can live on indefinately (and maybe even serve a more noble purpose).

Lensman wrote:

Kahuna, I too wish we could discuss climatology and climate change without engaging in partisan bickering. But once the pro-CAGW crowd started characterizing CAGW skeptics as "deniers", meaningful dialogue became difficult or impossible.

I must agree with you there. Once a debate has been lowered by such tactics it is hard to ever raise the civility again. Some (like Judith Miller as mentioned) are able to stay above the fray somehow and are only committed to finding truth whereever it takes them. I salute them.

Thanks Parallel. Although not really very balanced, the video does at least cover some of touch on some of the major issues from both sides.

One of the most truly balanced people I have found in the debate is Judith Miller at Climate Etc. who at least tries to get past yelling and name calling to analysis of facts and the underlying science.

Speaking of a balanced process, I was struck by this video of a Canadian Senate hearing that ended up being so diametrically opposed to the U.S. Congressional hearings in style that I watched the whole thing (which was not my intent).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_emb...

Even though the presenters (in this case) were all skeptical academics, the courtesy shown and the thoughtful and civil Q&A was so refreshing that I had to watch as one might pause to take a deep breath of fresh air after being trapped in a smoke-filled room. At the end, the spell of broken by Senator Mitchell who gave a U.S. style pontification on how the Science is settled and listening to deniers is a waste of everyone's time. No matter what side of this debate you are on (or even if you are agnostic), I think you must conclude that the process exemplified by this hearing would be a lot more productive than the trench warfare that we mostly see today (this forum included).

Last edited Mon, 02 Jan 2012, 11:27pm by Kahuna

Oakthicket wrote:

Lensman wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

In the end, there wasn't a single significant Y2K problem anywhere in the world. This includes countries that did nothing to address Y2K 'issues'. The idiocy of the masses was never widely discussed. The subject disappeared quickly.

Bullshit.

The reason the Y2K computer bug didn't result in widespread problems was that programmers worked hard, and successfully, to solve the problem in advance.

Despite this, when I was working for U.S. Sprint, it was reported internally that one of the Sprint call centers went down promptly at midnight as the clock ticked over from 1999 to 2000. Admittedly it was only out for a few hours, but to pretend the problem didn't exist is absurd.

Complete and utter bullshit. You've joined the fringe woo-woo crowd on this one Lens. Show me one power plant that went down, one elevator that got stuck, one flight that crashed, one anything of significance.

My company spent $40 million and found absolutely nothing.

The Y2K outcome isn't a matter of opinion, speculation or uncertainty. It's a matter of public record. There were numerous countries that did nothing. There were numerous corporations that did nothing. Nothing happened.

I'll save you the trouble of looking up Wiki on Y2K problems on January 1, 2000. Here they are.

* In Sheffield, United Kingdom, incorrect Down's syndrome test results were sent to 154 pregnant women and two abortions were carried out as a direct result of a Y2K bug. Four Down's syndrome babies were also born to mothers who had been told they were in the low-risk group.

* In Ishikawa, Japan, radiation-monitoring equipment failed at midnight; however, officials stated there was no risk to the public.

* In Onagawa, Japan, an alarm sounded at a nuclear power plant at two minutes after midnight.

* In Japan, at two minutes past midnight, Osaka Media Port, a telecommunications carrier, found errors in the date management part of the company's network. The problem was fixed by 02:43 and no services were disrupted.

* In Japan, NTT Mobile Communications Network (NTT DoCoMo), Japan's largest cellular operator, reported on 1 January 2000, that some models of mobile telephones were deleting new messages received, rather than the older messages, as the memory filled up.

* In Australia, bus-ticket-validation machines in two states failed to operate.

* In the United States, 150 slot machines at race tracks in Delaware stopped working.

* In the United States, the U.S. Naval Observatory, which runs the master clock that keeps the country's official time, gave the date on its website as Jan. 1, 19100.

* In France, the national weather forecasting service, Meteo France, said a Y2K bug made the date on a webpage show a map with Saturday's weather forecast as "01/01/19100". This also occurred on other websites, including att.net, at the time a general-purpose portal site primarily for AT&T Worldnet customers in the United States.

With the exception of the Sheffield, England incident, none of the other events would normally warrant media attention. The types of Y2K issues reported happen all the time for different reasons. That includes the Sheffield incident.

Although there are no firm numbers, estimates of worldwide Y2K expenses are in the $300 - $500 billion range. I'm sure many folks appreciated getting new computers and system upgrades because of Y2K paranoia.

Your comment about programmers working hard, therefore avoiding Y2K issues is the same as superstitious tribes sacrificing someone every day before dawn to ensure that the sun comes up. When the sun rises, it reinforces their beliefs that human sacrifice was necessary.

As with many things the actual answer is somewhere in between these extremes. I was a regional CIO for Lockheed Martin during the run-up to Y2K and was responsible for many millions of lines of legacy applications code that needed to be remediated for Y2K rediness.

Our remediation projects were substantial in scope and there is no doubt that there were some real issues that would have caused real problems with substantial financiatial and operational consequences had nothing been done. And yes, a lot of programmer/analysts worked hard to avoid these issues. The fixes however were very straight forward so it was merely a matter of finding all the issues, making the code changes and testing them for Y2K compliance (the testing was actually one of the more difficult parts). In LM, I do not recall any major Y2K caused outages/losses.

That being said, I think I can speak for most of my peers at the time (with whom I attended endless conferences, etc. that were held on the subject) that the whole Y2K threat was totally overblown by non-computer literate management who a non-computer literate press had in a non-computer literate tizzy over the whole business which was really just another (among many) legacy applications issue to be resolved. The amount of time money and worry afforded to Y2K issues was absolutely ridiculous IMO.

Christine wrote:

“If runaway global warming was possible it would have happened before.”

It has happened before. Study the Permian–Triassic extinction event.

Ah Hello - you don't return from a "runaway" event. That's the whole point of the alarmists and the the subject of this thread. Do something now (w/i 5 years) or we will reach a tipping point from which there is no return and after which we will all be extinct.

DGDanforth wrote:

By the way. Notice that Rossi has all of his stuff wrapped in tinfoil. That says something right there!

It actually says very little. At Lockheed Martin we routinely wrap components of very expensive and complex communications satellites in very similar material. It proved very effective.

Of course you can wrap dog crap in it also. Just saying that it doesn't say much about what's inside.

I have seen some articles of late which say that CO2 is rising even faster World-Wide than had been predicted (although not in the U.S.), yet temperature has been essentially flat for a decade or more. Since AGW theory says that temperature is primarily a function of atmospheric CO2 levels, how can the temp resist the added CO2 forcing for so long. Clearly there must be other counteracting forces at play. Given that fact, how in the world can say that we understand the CO2/Temp relationship well enough to bet our economy on it? I do not get how the IPCC et al are so sure of the relationship impending doom when it has not played out according to the theory so far.

This Forbes article hits most of the high points of my quandry:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11...

Technopete wrote:

HEEman wrote:

So if we are still here in five years will all you treehuggers shut the hell up? I'm willing to make bets with anyone on this.

The usual superficial treatment from AGW skeptics. They can't tell the difference between :-

"The world will end in 5 years"

and

"In 5 years time it will be too late to stop the world ending in 50 years time."

It's just too subtle for some people.

Regards,
Peter

It really makes no difference if you fall off a cliff or get on a slide headed for the cliff from which there is no escape - you are eventually going over the cliff either way.

I just wish we could get the "science settled" and have an "consensus" on the 5 year timeframe. Then we could have a big countdown clock in Time Square or something.

As I recall we had a 10 year alarm like this about 10 years ago.

Lensman wrote:

Taylor wrote:

Lensman, the e-cat is only the heat source, not an electric generator.

So is the firebox underneath the boiler in a coal-fired power plant. And so is a nuclear power plant's nuclear reactor.

A commercial power plant is one that generates electricity. It's not a district heating system.

Actually it is often both as in cogeneration:

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

NY's ConEd is a huge cogeneration supplier.

TecsFanEE wrote:

I have fallen in love with Rossi. Its like performance art. Have any of you ever listened to the old Phil Hendrie show on the radio? Rossi reminds me of this.

If Rossi spent half as much time working on a proper test protocol as he does fucking around answering every email from every dumbass on the planet then he would have already had this thing proven.

By the way does anyone know where I can send questions to Rossi? This seems like a fun little game that I would enjoy playing.

Just post them as comments here:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/

Generally the most recent article is where most of the action is but Rossi seems to scan them all and respond to only what suits his fancy.

NyTeknik has assembled and summarized several of the more credible analyses of the Oct 6th E-Cat demos here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/ene...

There are links to the detail of each analysis and a summary. All see major flaws in Rossi's test setup, yet all but one seem to believe that anomalous heat was demonstrated during the self-sustain mode.

Selected Quotes:

Heffner: “This test incorporated many improvements over prior tests. However, as in the numerous prior demonstrations of the E-cats, we are left tantalized by a strong indication of possible excess energy, and disappointed that, with a little extra effort, high quality proof might have finally been at hand.

Roberson: “The long period of relatively constant heat production following deactivation of the E-cat main internal core heater suggests significant excess energy. Accurate determination of that energy cannot be established due to imperfections of the test setup.”

Higgins: ” Skeptics will insist the test was too short and lacked sufficient rigor to provide incontrovertible evidence of a nuclear reaction – they are correct. However, despite the test’s flaws (and considering the integrity of those involved), the data suggests that substantial excess energy (as heat) was produced . . , Critical error analysis of the experiment will continue; but the expectation is that errors will be unable to account for the large excess heat output.

Also discussed are expectations for the 10/28 1MW test as well as Defkalion and Piantelli claims and activities.

Probably worth the read and has some good references.

Last edited Sun, 23 Oct 2011, 8:35am by Kahuna

Here are some NyTeknik Reports on yesterdays E-Cat tests:

TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/ene...

Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962....

Taylor wrote:

Does anyone know if their is some internet update on some site for this Oct 6th demo?