Can You Speak Cat?

I have enough trouble with English. I blame it all on Bush.

Facebook Group: Your Thoughts On The Energy Catalyzer

Via FreeEnergy Truth:  Recently we asked for some comments from our Facebook Group on what people thought about Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer. Here are some of the interesting and thought provoking responses we received.

I don't think I have 'Facebook liked' that group yet, but I think I have liked another.

One can fall into a type of conspiracy mindset that suggests something evil could be afoot when there are those who deny the "reality of cold fusion".  It could be taking it a bit too far, and I'm not there yet.  Yes, but I could be getting there.  However, I'm keeping my feet firmly planted on the ground.

I've spent some of the day re reading Mallove's book which I briefly commented upon not long ago.  It seems to me all the more plausible every day that this phenomena called "cold fusion" really is real.  Yet, it is not accepted.  The feeling that there are those who are deliberately holding it back can easily be understood within this context.

If there was an evil entity that only wants bad things to happen, you would have to think of something like the Anti Christ and the end times.  Are we to that point?  It is certainly strange times in which we live.  Already, there is the attempt to withhold access to fossil fuels, which are still abundant, at least for the time being.  In addition, there is no real need for exotic new sources of energy, such as "cold fusion", inasmuch as we already have fission energy.  But we can't have that either.  Even if you were to eliminate a lot of the waste issues of fission energy, as is the case with Thorium power, there doesn't seem to be widespread acceptance of it.  In short, there isn't a lack of energy.  There is a lack of interest in allowing energy sources to be tapped.  The consequences of that can be tragic.

Are these the end times?  Is this the works of the Anti Christ?  Regardless of your religious affiliation, one has to be appalled at the prospect of something less than a supernatural force that could be thrwarting efforts at a solution to our mutual problems.  Nevertheless, the temptation could be in thinking that such a supernatural force could exist.  Let's look at a couple of film clips, shall we? From the triology of Damien Omen, here are scenes from the second and third of the series:






All you can do is reason with people, but that doesn't always work, does it?

Kirkham University Aluminum Fender Dent Repair (video)

This guy is an artist! Bet you didn't think of an automotive repairman as an artist.

(Hot Air video) Report: Palin to decide on run next week?

Evidently, conventional wisdom says this woman can't be president. That is why I don't trust conventional wisdom.

Blacklight Power

Recently, I wrote that I may look into the topic of this post. After studying this Wikipedia article, I am going to stop looking into it pretty quick.

I may be unconventional, but not too much. This looks too far off the beaten track for me. Perhaps someone else would be interested.

Quick update:

I noticed that blacklight power has made it up the charts of popular posts. I should point out that I don't endorse blacklight power and the person or person's responsible for this are not connected to me in any way other than coming to this blog. I am going to put this up as a sidebar entry to emphasize this fact. Anyone who is interested can see that I don't endorse it. Anybody who comes here and believes in this is welcome, but don't expect me to join your marketing plan. Also, I reserve the right to delete any references to it if it gets to be an annoyance.

Huizenga conclusion

There isn't anything new to report about the book, so now I turn my attention to some observations about the book as a whole. With respect to that, it appears that the author considers himself to be a protector and defender of science. He mentions procedures over and over. He questions other's integrity at times, while insisting upon high standards of proof. He seems to doubt the wisdom of entrepreneurial motivations vis a vis the practice of science. He believes science is a collective activity as opposed to an individual one. To a certain extent, he may even be right.

But what if he is wrong? To me, this raises a question: does science serve man, or does man serve science? It appears to me that Huizenga believes the latter, while I am of the opinion that it should be the former. Should two scientists be sacrificed on the altar of scientific correctness? All because they may have made some procedural errors? All because they may have succumbed to the temptation of ambition and overreached a little too much? To the contrary, I believe. Without an incentive, even if it does appear to be greedy and self serving, the advancement of science may actually be impeded. As for procedural errors, even though this is to be taken very seriously, I do think that the potential of this discovery was so great, that a little leeway could have been granted. I do not see the justice or ruining F&P over some of what I would consider, some minor errors. If the course of time shows that F&P were on the right track, how does this serve justice, and how does it serve man? It would appear to me that real harm could have been done, all in the name of serving science.

Is this over protectiveness of science really necessary? What about the things that could be as opposed to merely the things that are? I am not suggesting some sort of "faith based" science. On the other hand, I don't support any notion that belief in something can't have a place in science. As a matter of fact, faith may not be avoidable. No matter how rational one may well be, ultimately you are driven and motivated by what you believe. If you are driven by skepticism, you may well be inclined to reject the possibility of things that may not seem possible based upon what is known today. An example: Christopher Columbus. If he didn't believe that the Earth was round, would he have suggested a course of action that could have been fatal for him, if, by any chance, he was wrong?

The Morning Summary, 6/18

Time to switch gears and put my blogging shoes on.  The audience is dwindling, and, well, there may not be anything I can do about that.  Unless someone invents a longer day, or I get paid a lot more.  In the meantime, I will be pressed for time and the blog will suffer.

Nevertheless, I felt like this was a productive week for the blog.  I reviewed a book, or mostly reviewed it, and that's something.  I'd like to think of something to say about it, but I have to organize my thoughts.  Hopefully, by the end of the day, I will have something to "close the book" on Huizenga's book.

Going forward, it may well be the case that the weekends may be the only time I can blog freely.  Even then, I have to do chores that can't be done during the week.

I considered taking my computer with me.  If I do that, I will have to get an air card for my computer so I can blog while I am not driving.  This isn't cost effective though.

Maybe it is time to do it the old fashioned way, with a pen and paper.  I can take a few notes while I am not driving, then transfer them to the blog when I have the time.  That can make me a bit more productive.

There's a radio in the van, so it isn't like I have to do without information.  However, it is not the kind of information that will fit into my blog.  Radio is local, this blog is, ahem, global.

Most people get their news from TV, but I don't like TV.  It may be possible to buy a contraption I can carry with me.  A portable boob tube.  I can check that out today.  Keep tuned and I will let you know what I decide to do about that.

Evening Wrap, 6/17

I finished the book, hurray.  That's 12 parts in 3 days.  I may add a 13th post on it as a final summary, but for the moment, I'd rather not post another one on Huizenga just yet.

My usual coverage of politics and markets has suffered because I have simply been too busy.  With respect to the arts, the song "Strawberry Fields" by the Beatles came to mind today.  Something about the lyrics, but I don't know what exactly.

Thanks for coming by. Have a great evening. I'll try to post more tomorrow.

Huizenga Part XII

I am finishing the book up shortly. Just finished the chapter on Pathological Science. What struck me was this last two sentences in that chapter:

Only time will tell if there are processes such as, for example, "fracto-fusion" that can account for very low levels of fusion products.  The present evidence is not persuasive.

So, I reviewed fracto fusion.  Actually that theory is very close to what I was thinking.  I posted something on that on my post about fusion on a chip.


The reference to fracto fusion begins on p.82 of the book.

...as a possible source of very small bursts of neutrons, claimed to arise from a fracturing process producing cracks in the palladium and titanium metals.

Bingo!  I think this could be the explanation.  It is as good as any, and it appears that Huizenga didn't rule this out as completely as he did "cold fusion".  I am going to look to see if he recommended this be determined in the final report of the panel.  The failure to do so would have been a major, major oversight.

Afternoon Break, 6/17; Huizenga Part XI

In the previous post, I thought I saw bias, and had to climb down a little from that, but not all the way.  Here's a quote Huizenga made a little later that is interesting in that it was similar to what I had stated myself.

Why bother with theoretical speculations, if the postulates are so improbable, or if the phenomena in question are very unlikely to even exist? 

You could ask that about this book.  Why write this book discussing the speculations about a phenomena that you didn't think existed?  Why not just show that the anomalous heat didn't exist?  It existed or it didn't.  If it didn't, why write about this other stuff?

It is indeed rather pointless to speculate about something that doesn't exist, and you can prove that it doesn't exist. If he talks about other things, it raises the question, in my mind, that he thinks that the heat does exist, and wants to will it away by demanding an explanation for it.

Let's put it another way. Let's say somebody's house just burned down. An investigation revealed no plausible cause and it was a big mystery. The investigator doesn't report the house never existed because it couldn't be explained why it burned down. Nor could the fact that it burned down be explained away because the investigator could not determine why it burned down. You don't go to the home owner and say "Sorry, but your house didn't burn down, You made a mistake. It really didn't happen that way.". The homeowner replies: 'But it did burn down!" And the investigator says "Prove it!"

Either they got heat or they didn't.  This doesn't require a government panel to determine this fact.  I think he stumbles badly here in this chapter.  ( Ch. 11)

Morning Break, 6/17, Huizenga Part X

What do these pictures have to do with Huizenga's book?  Nothing.  I included them because these are my new wheels.  It may be boring, but maybe somebody might find it interesting.

As far as Mr. H.'s book, I found something quite interesting this morning as I was reading.  There was a quote, which I don't have handy, which he states that he felt it was more important to investigate why instead of what.

What does that mean?  When I write "what" in terms of F&P, I mean anomalous heat production.  It is or it isn't.  To me, the why can wait until you figure out if you have a "what".  If you don't have a "what", then there is no need for a "why".  That's because if there is no heat, there is no need to explain its existence.  It should be easier to determine if there is heat or not.  As far as the why of the matter, this part may not be explainable, given the possibility that this is a new, unknown process.  The attempt to explain why of such a scenario, should it exist, would end in failure because there may not be a possible explanation for it.  It would, in effect, be breaking new ground.

This must mean that Mr. H. had already determined that it wasn't a new process, therefore he demanded a why.  But this is begging the question.  If the what is an impossibility, why ask for an explanation?  It is prejudging the event.   By definition, it means he could not be fair.  He denies bias, but in his own words here, he is admitting it.

Update:  Here's the quote:

Right from the beginning the real and most important issue was not whether the claim was real and correct, but how the reported data and claims could be explained. p. 194

I have to correct myself here.  He was referring to claims with respect to polywater as compared to the claims of "cold fusion".  Therefore, he may have an out here, by claiming he really wasn't referring how he treated the cold fusion claims.  I still think he was biased, though.

Morning Summary, 6/17

Sort of what I've been expecting.  At the peak, I was posting about 15 posts per day.  Now, it's possible that I will only have time, on some days, for a couple.  I can imagine even less than that.  They won't be high quality posts either.   It may be possible to add more content.  I can look into it, but it will probably cost money.  I'd rather not spend the money if I can avoid it.

Moving on, the plan is to finish the book either today or tomorrow.  I want to summarize my posts thus far and "close the book" on the book.  After that, I may recap everything I have written about Rossi Focardi.  Up till now, there has been nearly 100 posts on the subject.

I noticed that Blacklight Power has gotten some interest.  It has moved up the list for popular posts.  It could become a subject for discussion.

The other subjects I cover have taken a back seat.  Maybe I can work in some posts about those.  It is a question of how much time I have for it.

Well, that's all for now.  I have to get ready to do the day job.  Thanks for coming by.

Evening Wrap, 6/16: Huizenga, Part IX

Just got back to my computer. Huzienga's book is nearly finished. Here are a few more items:

1. Chapter 8 was a killer chapter.  F&P's position was on the verge of being destroyed here.  It is little wonder that it has been such a hard uphill climb after that.  Just speaking for myself, if I didn't know anything about any other fusion energy strategies, like Polywell and Focus Fusion, I would have been utterly convinced by this chapter.  This makes it seem shaky, even to me.  The one thing that keeps me from being convinced is that the conventional means of achieving fusion have failed.  So what makes the hot fusion community so much better than the cold?  The results are the same
2. Chapter 9 was about how "cold fusion" was being promoted.  Once again, Huizenga puts it in the worst possible light.
3. Chapter 10, p. 164  Bockris calls the DOE panel that Huizenga chairs as a "killer commission". So does Pons.  Huizenga denies it.
4. p. 172   A pejorative tag of "believer" is used here, as is the case thoughout the book.
5. p. 184   Regret over the millions squandered over an idea that he rejected from the start (his words)

I would really like "cold fusion" to work.  But that doesn't mean that I will believe something on just faith alone.  You've got to show me.  My position is "give it a chance".   Guys like Huizenga seem to begrudge anything to this idea.  Even when Utah was showing some support, he seemed intent upon shooting that down.

It is kind of hard for me to understand the hostility.

Afternoon break, 6/15: Huizenga Part VIII

Since I've been posting on Huizenga's book, I may as well make it into a series. The series will be included in the category of Rossi Focardi E-cat because Rossi Focardi is related to "cold fusion", even though that is not what it is called nowadays.

I've been able to cover about another 20 pages in the book.  The current part is asking the question of where the fusion products are.  It should be kept in mind that this is a 1992 book and what Huizenga is referring to is Fleischmann and Pons ( for now on F&P) palladium and deuterium "cold fusion" claims.  By the way, in case you are not familiar with this blog, I use "cold fusion" because I doubt that there isn't any such thing as cold fusion, and two, to distinguish between what F&P actually claimed and how it was reported.

This part of the book is for the seriously interested scientific types and is a bit of a slog for yours truly.  I am getting through it slowly.  It does appear persuasive that it isn't necessarily an easy chore to find any evidence that fusion is actually taking place, according to F&P's claims.    However, since the later versions of "cold fusion" are not focused upon palladium and deuterium, then it can be said that it is dated.  Another reason that this is a slog.

The most recent part of this book is starting to get close to a fraud accusation against Bockris of Texas A&M - who was attempting to replicate F&P's claims. My understanding is that these claims of fraud were subsequently dropped. The aggressiveness of that type of rhetoric is striking. For what purpose would fraud be committed? Especially since there was no obvious motive. Anyone who can find one, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Well, that's all for now. Thanks for coming by. I'll have another post this evening when I sign off.

Morning Break 6/16- Huizenga Part VII

Some notes from Huizenga's book

1.  p.101 He said he wanted a short and forceful statement
2. p. 104 he answers some of the charges of bias made against his panel
3. p. 105 he gives a description of the usual procedure to get government funding
4. p. 107  the first mention of "pathological science"

Comments:

As to number 1) why the need for a forceful statement?  He claims no bias on page 104, but if that is true, why the need for a strong statement?  I don't get that.   The charge given to the panel was to determine if government should spend any money on it, but a "strong statement" doesn't leave much wiggle room.  Fleischmann and Pons did the original research on their own dime.  Surely the government could afford a small research project if the doubts were too high for a more ambitious project.  Why stifle all spending completely?  The panel did admit some reason for continued research, but it was to be modest.  But the strong statement stigmatized it so much that no one was willing to stick their necks out for it very much. 

As for his panel, he had something to do with chosing the members.  Could they not be biased as well?  "Birds of a feather flock together."

This reminds me of a phenomenon that I once observed while reading an admitted liberal's books.  He claiimed in one of his books that there is no liberal bias in the media.  It struck me that there are some people out there who cannot recognize their own bias and insist that there isn't any.  But in the case of liberal bias in the media. it has been detected by the public according to polls.  I think most people would agree that the media is dominated by Democrats.  Take a poll of media people and see how many of them are Democrats.  The idea that they aren't biased is hard to square with observable fact.

In Huzienga's case, I suspect the bias exists in terms of what he may have at stake himself in the outcome.  His university, the University of Rochester, has some interest in hot fusion research.  To ignore this is to ignore the potential that a conflict of interest could exist and would impair the fairness of the panel itself.

To be fair, the rest of the panel didn't appear to be uniformly biased (according to his account).  However, it is possible that they deferred to Huizenga on the issue of fusion, because that was his area of expertise.  

The use of the term "pathological science" has to be a dead giveaway for bias.  Why stigmatize an idea opponent with such a loaded term if there wasn't bias?  What does idea opponent refer to?   Huizenga was a proponent of hot fusion as opposed to "cold fusion".   An idea opponent is to be in contrast to a visceral opponent, who not only disagrees with your ideas, but also disagrees with you as a human being.  What did he have against Fleischmann and Pons?  He may claim nothing, but the use of that term looks visceral opposition to me.

Therefore, his answers to charges of non bias are not persuasive to me.

The Morning Summary, 6/16- Huizenga Part VI

The numbers have fallen.  Yes, I was afraid of that.   Not much time.

I want to get to this quickly, so let's begin right away.

Here's a direct quote from Huizenga's book

Secrecy tends to breed careless mistakes and second rate science and is detrimental to advancing scientific knowledge.

This is a clue into this man's thinking.  Secrecy can be bad, I suppose, but it the assertion of second rate science may be a little too much.  The Manhattan Project was pretty secret, I understand.

Bill Gates wrote a Basic interpreter for one of the early personal computers that evidently was first rate.  He didn't have a large team in those days.

Albert Einstein may have produced the Theory of Relativity on his own.

It may be possible to go on and on giving examples of how first rate works can be produced without having to work in a large team and collaborating with others.  In fact, I had the impression that the best stuff is often done by individuals.  It could be science or it could be art.

No doubt that there are advantages to having large teams, but that doesn't guarantee first rate work.  The book, the Mythical Man Month describes how IBM 360 Operating System became such an expensive project and required far more effort to produce.  Here's a quote from Amazon's page about the book

The classic book on the human elements of software engineering. Software tools and development environments may have changed in the 21 years since the first edition of this book, but the peculiarly nonlinear economies of scale in collaborative work and the nature of individuals and groups has not changed an epsilon. [emphasis added]

That doesn't appear to necessarily be first rate.  Contrast that with Bill Gates' work mentioned above.

Anyway, that's about all I can write right now.  I am up to about 90 pages in this book.  It is a slow process since I have little time.  But I am getting there.  Thanks for coming by.

The Evening Wrap, 6/15

Long day today. I have finished about 90 pages of Huizenga's book. Rather than to go into details, because I am a bit tired right now, I won't discuss too much about it right here. But I'll mention something pretty short, and that is this: I think it was a mistake to make him chairman of that panel that investigated "cold fusion". It's not because he isn't qualified. I just don't think he can be trusted to give a completely objective report. I'll try to justify that statement in future posts. Until then, thanks for coming by, and have a great evening.

Afternoon break, 6/15- Huizenga Part V

A quick thought here. It appears that Utah wanted to use the "cold fusion" announcement as a way to get funding from the government for research. This was a mistaken idea. I base this upon my understanding of how copyrights work. Disclosure: I've written and sold software. (Not commercially successful, though)

This "cold fusion" research does not fit that designation, but it is useful as an analogy. In the software industry, if you want to protect your work, you do not do "peer review". Peer review is better for something like a government sponsored effort. As such, peer review is to me the way to go in order to get government funding. However, if the interest is commercial, then the last thing you want to do is peer review.

Let's put it another way. Peer review is a collective process. The commercial pathway is not collective, it is individualistic. This is therefore, an improper procedure in order to exploit the discovery of "cold fusion" at that time. That is assuming, of course, that "cold fusion" is valid.

For Utah to press Fleischmann and Pons to go public with an announcement is bad strategy if the idea was to protect the financial interest in it. Instead, they should have gone dark if they wanted profits. That means, keep the research secret and fund it as best as they could on their own. If they couldn't do that, the only other way was to go the peer review route. But then they lose their commercial rights to it. (unless there is something I am missing here)

I think this part of the problem belongs to Utah. My understanding was that they pushed Fleischmann and Pons to go public. If they went the peer review route, which is what Fleischmann said that he wanted to do, then this entire mess could have been avoided. On the other hand, if they kept quiet about it, they may have been able to go public once they had it figured out well enough to exploit it commercially.

Morning Break, 6/15- Huizenga Part IV

Since my schedule is a bit different, there has to be a new category of short posts designated to handle all posts of this type. They'll be labeled "Breaktime to make time", and this new label for this new category will be at the bottom of this post for easy reference for now on. This post will also be labeled as a sidebar entry in order to note the new category of posts that can be traced in a similar fashion.  That is the practice that I have set up so as to keep track of these new categories as they are created.  With that bit of housekeeping done, let's move on to what I wanted to write about.

I continue to read Huizenga's book about "cold fusion". I have gotten to the point where the DOE panel was set up to investigate the claims being made. The Energy Secretary at that time, Admiral Watkins, charged the panel with the following:

1. To review the experiments and theory regarding the work done on "cold fusion".
2. To identify what research should be undertaken to determine, if possible, what processes could be involved.
3. To identify what R&D direction the DOE should take which could lead to a practical application.

The above sentences are not direct quotes from the book. I shortened them to make them easier to type as I am in a bit of a hurry. These are put up here as a point of reference to what recommendations the panel eventually made. When I get to that point, I'll take a look at this again.

In my opinion, the DOE report set the tone for everything that was to follow for the next 20 years. It appears to be reasonable steps to take in response to the events that occurred at that time. However, given the stakes, could not more have been done? Why leave it all up to the scientific community? Given the great significance of this as an energy source, isn't it reasonable to ask more than just the scientific questions? Why not ask a wider variety of experts from different fields to evaluate it from their own respective points of view. Not to confuse this with the science of it, but also the business potential, among others.

This is not to criticize this with 20/20 hindsight. I am just wondering if the way events unfolded was the best that could have been done?

Morning Summary, 6/15- Huizenga Part III

An uptick in traffic? I am surprised a bit and pleased. Thanks very much. Let's be realistic, though. I can't produce very much right now. The amount of material to read is going to be small for now. This cannot be avoided.

As for Huizenga's book, it is also slow going to slog through this thing. It isn't necessarily an easy read. I must also admit some error yesterday. It seems as though I exaggerated just a little upon how much I had read. Instead of dozens of pages, it was like one dozen pages. It just seemed like dozens of pages because it is heavy duty reading.

So, let's be a little more accurate. As of this writing, I am up to page 36. The impressions so far fall into line with what I wrote yesterday, but the difference is that Huizenga is starting to discuss that- which is the vast monetary value of the potential discovery. On this point, it may be argued that while Huizenga is an expert on his own field, he is not that much of an expert outside his field. You would need top rated people in various disciplines who would examine this from a wide variety of perspectives. Given the potential significance of a discovery like this, it would have been wise not to leave it to just the scientists. It is too important and significant to treat it too lightly.

Today, I am likely to be even busier than yesterday. I will attempt to do as much reading as possible. If I have anything of interest, I will report it here. Thanks for coming by.

Update:

Oops! I forgot to put a title on this post. Sorry for any inconvenience.

The Evening Wrap, 6/14- Huizenga Part II

There aren't that many posts to talk about. I'll let that graphic slide tonight.

I mentioned earlier today that I started reading Huizenga's book. Huizenga is the chief critic of "cold fusion".

Not much progress beyond what I've already mentioned.

A quick thought before I go. This is not always a nice world out there. People do crappy things all the time. So, it wouldn't surprise me if Huizenga's book was intended to be part of an effort to destroy "cold fusion" as a respectable idea. On the other hand, it isn't my intention to turn this guy into a bad guy. The one thing here that may be questionable is the force of the criticism. Is he really that sure? He seems certain, or wants those who read his book to believe it certain, that there was an error.

That's not to say that there wasn't an error. But Fleischmann had a good career up to that point, just as Huizenga. Generally speaking, I'd say Fleischmann was the equal of all his detractors. Yet they were passing judgment upon him as though he was not their equal. I'd say Huizenga was just as liable to make a mistake as Fleischmann. It isn't that cut and dried.

There were other considerations too. This wasn't just about scientific process and going through proper channels. Anybody who has done anything that would be considered of an intellectual property of value would understand that you just don't share information that freely with your peers. It is naive to suggest that this is always the way to go for all circumstances. If you don't understand what I'm referring to, or if Huizenga doesn't, then you aren't using your head. You don't give away knowledge of great value for free. Money is at stake. The rules may change when that happens. Therefore, this criticism is overblown.

Huizenga's critical book of "Cold Fusion"- Part I

His book just arrived this morning and I've been reading the first few dozen pages during some of my free time today.

So far, I am not persuaded by his arguments. I suppose those who would support this book would say that I am letting my feelings overpower my reason. I don't think that is correct. I really don't have a dog in this hunt. If he can persuade me, then I will have no problem changing my mind.

It is only the beginning of the book, so he still has time. I intend to finish reading it. Perhaps he may make a "killer argument", but so far, I haven't seen one.

I will give progress reports as I go through the book. Stay tuned.

The Morning Summary, 6/14

Very nice turnout for so little production yesterday. Thanks very much. Let's see if I can actually put up something worth reading today. I can't guarantee quantity though. Not as much time to work on it.

It may sound pretty dumb because it probably is, but there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to this blog. This was true at the beginning. Over time, it is crystallized into something with more meaning as the blog evolved over time.

You see, this blog had no master plan nor purpose. If I had attempted to come up with a mission statement for it, or a description of what it is, I couldn't have done it, or not without great effort. Eventually, I came up with the heading that graces the top of this blog. "Kardashevian Aspirations"- mastery of energy and space in order to raise civilization to a higher level. Still, is that somewhat inadequate. It isn't exactly what it is all about. Which is where my personal problems come in.

If it is to be a business, it needs a revenue source. Otherwise, how to keep going? I tried a number of ideas, all of which have not been successful. Finally, I am where I am now- having to go back to doing what I usually do in order to support myself. That is, I am a delivery guy.

But I want to keep doing this. So, my delivery work can support me and I can support this blog. But why would I want to do that? Isn't there something better to do with my time? This leaves me with a question that I need to get answered somehow. What is my motivation for continuing? I can't get paid for this. Not now at least. Over time, there may be some commercial value in it, but for the moment- no.

I can hope for that in the future, but that may be a vain hope. There has to be a basis for hope- an increasing audience, some actual sales and donations. That sort of thing. Or, I can decide altogether to forego any real hope of making this thing pay, but then I am back to the same old question again- why do this?

This brought me to the militia question which I mused about yesterday's morning summary. But this isn't military, so what is the appropriate term? So, I begin looking that up in the old wikipedia and found a reference to tribune, as in Roman times. Well, I am definitely a plebe, no getting around that one. This isn't the Roman Republic, though. It is an American Republic, at least for the moment. Let's say I'd like to keep it that way.

That role of tribune in the American Republic has been the press. It's sacrosanct attribute came from the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Congress can make no law- as long as the "powers that be" respect the law.  That means the right to free speech.

But the press isn't adequately filling that role anymore. It has become corrupted by the need to make a buck. So, they have been captured by that master and have to serve him. But by serving him, they have lost their real power. The real power comes from independence from the government. I think they have lost that independence and are serving the government and those who control it.

The government can't forbid the press from saying things, but I think things have gotten far enough out of hand that this day may be within sight. So, I think a mission for this blog is to keep certain ideas out there before they get snuffed out of existence by the powerful who see any new idea as a threat to their power.

Such is the case for "cold fusion". Such could be case in many other instances which have not been as written about here quite so much. If it happens once, it can happen many other times. I think of it like roaches. If you see one roach, you can count on there being a lot more. Like seeing a roach, if you see once instance of a worthy idea being suppressed, then there must be more. If that happens, you need an "exterminator". Get rid of the roaches, please.

The exterminator has a dirty job, but somebody has got to do it. It doesn't have much status, nor glory, but unless you want to be overrun by roaches, you will need him.

But the title is a bit gauche, yes? Not an exterminator, but something like one. Maybe one who keeps worthy things alive and not keep unworthy things alive. This involves justice and justice requires truth.  I believe that I can serve up the truth here.  At least get closer to it than what exists now.

These are some of my thoughts. I hope you found them interesting.

I will add this to the sidebar entry, as has been my custom when I write something I want to easily reference. In order to see all these type of posts, just click on that label at the end of this post. Like everything else on this blog, it has been a work in progress. If anything, you may be able to see how the blog has evolved over time.

Update:

This post was a little too repetitive with respect to what I wrote yesterday.  My regrets.  I have to do better than this.

The Evening Summary, 6/13

The routine may need to change. There's not enough content here to recap. Let's see how this goes tomorrow and make changes as necessary. Have a great evening.

Howdy buckaroos

I've been out and about this morning making a deal on my replacement vehicle. Do I brag? No. After getting through with this deal, I realize how modest my circumstances really are.

Cars and trucks are not cheap. Not that they ever were, but they can surely be said to be expensive now.

That didn't last long, just one week without wheels. Not even that if you count the rent vehicle.

Don't have a lot to say right now. I'm hungry enough to eat a hoss, having been without lunch. So, I am going to chow down and catch up on what's been happening today.

If I have anything that might be remotely intelligent to post, I'll give it a shot. As always, thanks for coming by.

Morning Summary, 6/13

It looks like a bump up in traffic, thank you very much. You tend to get spoiled with higher traffic. When it falls back to what it was previously, it's almost like a major catastrophe.

I am going to write something about E-cat today if I get the chance. Today figures to be a busy day, because if everything goes according to plan, I will buy a replacement vehicle today.

A replacement vehicle is the best strategy because I will have to do this anyway. The blog isn't making money. If the vehicle is what I think it is, it is a good value and it gives me the best opportunity to recover from my earlier mistake of selling my truck. I could be wrong and this could be another mistake. But you have to "roll the bones", and take your chances. I rolled the bones on the truck and lost. That's all their is to it.

This blog is like rolling the bones because I spent a lot of time on it and it hasn't generated much of an audience. For awhile, by posting on E-cat, I got more of an audience. The reason I want to write about E-cat is that I think the problems with it are similar to other problems this society is having right now. That is worth some commentary, so I will return to it eventually- even if I can't do that today.

I wrote about the commonalities between my own situation and E-cat too. It comes down to money, I said. It may also be about power. Power and money go hand in hand. Those who have money have power, and those who have power have money.

This blog is on the wrong side of the power equation. The only way to get plugged in is to do what the power people want and be brought into their service. I won't do that, if I can help it. This blog will be independent.

Since this blog is independent, it is analogous to a militia. A militia is in service to its community and it is volunteer and unpaid. This means that the motives of its members are non commercial and non mercenary. You can't say that about the media. They are a mercenary outfit getting paid to do the bidding of their masters. That bidding may not be in the interests of the community and is therefore a mistake to trust their word. Their word is self serving and should not be trusted.

I hope these words are enough to bring people back here who don't a mercenary interest of their own. My readers should be interested in servicing the needs of this community we call the USA. That doesn't mean it is exclusive to the USA. The interests of the people of the USA are not always in conflict with the interests of the rest of the people of the world.

But, to be honest, it could be more than what would be desired. But those who are not American could be coming here with not really friendly intentions. They may come here as observers of the American scene. No problem with that. This is supposed to be an open society. Even unfriendly people who are not Americans can observe what is happening here for as long as I can provide it- and use the information in whatever fashion they please. I am not connected to anything top secret- our society is open- they can get what information I have here in other ways, anyway. What I get comes from the web.

Eve. Summary, 6/12

Watching a global warming skeptic video. It is quite long. I can't help but think that the same people who destroyed "cold fusion" as a legitimate science are the ones who are pushing "global warming." Interesting thought. Something to think about in a future post.

Thanks for coming by.

Newsletter - Edition 268 - 12 June 2011 By Christopher Laird

Beware of markets conditions now. That's the message this week from Chris. His is a subscription based service, in which you can reach by click on his link on the products page.

Here are the sections of his latest newsletter.

Markets dropping and an end to massive public treasury support world wide
Warning: BIG USD base
What could be the effects of a long USD rally? And then what could be the effects if the USD has a bad Summer on the other hand?
A monster crash is very possible
They bought everything…everything!
Gold stocks vs. Gold prices
US election cycle

Roll the Bones- Xtranormal video

I tried it. What can I say?

How to survive a depression today

Solutions On This Site - How To Survive A Depression

Comment: My parents lived through the Great Depression. Mom said that they didn't know that there was a depression. They lived on a farm and could raise all their food. Dad said he could live off the land and he could and did. I think you could say there's a couple big clues of how to get through a depression.

Not everybody has a farm, and many people don't know how to hunt or fish. In a second Great Depression, they could be out of luck. Is there anything you could do? The linked website has a few ideas. Frankly, I didn't read through the whole thing. Instead, I followed the link to the Wikipedia site for the discussion on causes of the Great Depression.

I recognize the discussion belonging to Milton Friedman , so it was familiar. Others a bit less familiar, but I have to say that it is pretty clear in my mind on what is causing the distress now. But this discussion on Wikipedia seems to contradict it. It seems to claim that paying down debt increases indebtedness. Likewise, taking on more debt must decrease indebtedness ( by Keynesianism). This looks like a lot of nonsense to me. Paying debt is paying debt. Unless they are talking about something else, I'm not buying that.

The liquidation of debt could not keep up with the fall of prices which it caused. The mass effect of the stampede to liquidate increased the value of each dollar owed, relative to the value of declining asset holdings. The very effort of individuals to lessen their burden of debt effectively increased it. Paradoxically, the more the debtors paid, the more they owed.

They need a better theory than this.

Keynesianism may work to a certain extent- but I think it is like having too much of a good thing. In my opinion, throwing money at a problem is not going to solve it. Rather, I think you have to look for causes and effects. It is not necessarily valid that what happened in the 1930's is the same thing that is happening today. We've seen decades of Keynesianism. None of this has prevented a great recession, none of it will get the economy out of one. As for causes and effects, the current mess started with a failure in the credit markets. That's where you should go to start fixing the problem. That means to fix the housing mess. But that doesn't mean inflating the economy, rather, it means getting a realistic way to determine risk and returns. An unrealistic means of determining risk in credit markets must, by definition, undermine them. If this can be restored, which was lost- causing the credit markets to freeze- then that will restore confidence in the credit system, and it can begin to recover.

There was an attempt to get recovery from the Great Depression through protectionism. I agree that was a bad idea. But here is what I think. The US economy is over consuming in terms of oil- solve that and you improve the trade balance. There are those who argue that this doesn't matter. However, I think it does. It matters a lot. An improvement in the trade imbalance can lead to a stronger dollar. On the other hand, lower interest rates with an already weak dollar will not solve a fundamental competitiveness problem. It will only foster inflation. If this economy uses a lot of energy, then it must produce a lot of energy. At this juncture, that is not the case. The cause therefore, is a lack of oil production at home combined with excessive consumption from abroad. It is a lot like the problem as in the previous paragraph because of a unwillingness to live within one's means. If you buy more than you can sell, you don't have the income to consume.

The previous two paragraphs describe a pattern of living extravagantly without the concomitant means of paying for it. Nothing illustrates this better than the current administration's attempts to foster recovery by massive deficit spending. The government has to live within its means. By setting the example, the government can encourage frugality by demonstrating it in its policy making. If the government encourages extravagance, why should the people behave any differently? The government is supposed to be leading the people. If it is their idea to lead the country to financial ruin, they could not be said to be doing a better job of that than what they are doing now.

The final piece to the puzzle is to encourage savings and investment. For years, the savings rate was much too low. People spent too much and lived too extravagantly. The financial strength of the nation needs to be restored by an appropriate incentive system that will encourage savings and investment. It going to take a lot of hard work, but the right mix of savings, investments, belt tightening, production incentives and monetary policy can get the economy going in the right direction.

So, that's the problem?

Do crazy people have a right to be heard? I think they do — as long as they’re American. But even with crazy people’s well known infiltration of the internet — appearing in any blog or news comments section or online forum they can access — they still have a lot of trouble getting people to listen to them.

Tell you what. I don't follow this advice because I'm not sure there is a normal anymore. That's where they make their mistake. If you think the world is normal, then you must think everybody is rational, logical, predictable, reasonable, level headed, wise and any other good trait you can think of. Trouble is, nobody is like that, if they were, there would be a lot less trouble in the world. Just look around and try to say that the world is full of nice, reasonable people who always do the right thing. The more often thing is that they do the wrong thing, and laugh in your face for your naivete if you believe that they are really trying to play by the rules and be nice, and if you act disappointed when they are not.

I see so much crazy stuff that I am beginning to think that's what is normal. All "normal" means is that it is average. The average isn't "normal" in the meaning given on that page. If you don't listen, maybe you should. How the heck do you know that you should listen or not listen? Maybe the crazy thing is not to listen. Maybe the crazy thing is to listen. You have to know the difference, and no rule book is going to tell you that. A rule book is an excuse not to use your head. Go through life like that you will get creamed again and again.

Even crazy people should be listened to even when they talk gibberish. I can think of an example of that. A real life example where a woman who was clearly insane had vital information, but wasn't being taken seriously. So, I think this article is bad advice. It doesn't tell you what really is crazy and useless, only to appear to people not to be crazy or stupid. If by that it means to continue acting crazy and not be noticed for that, what good does that serve?

Is there a rule that you can count on? In my opinion, if there is a rule book that you can follow, then it would be one that required the truth. Truth is hard to find in a world of dishonest people, but I think if you want to find it, you can. It may even require that you take great risk to yourself to find it. If you can get to the truth, you may have a chance at staying sane. A world of untruth is, by definition, insane.

Call that crazy if you want. It wouldn't make me any crazier than anybody else.

Rush: "Roll the Bones"

The rock group Rush says "Roll the Bones".  I remember this first came out and it on the radio all the time.  At the time, I had less appreciation for it than now.   Here's the part I like the best and I may make a video out of it

Jack, relax.
Get busy with the facts.
No zodiacs or almanacs,
No maniacs in polyester slacks.
Just the facts.
Gonna kick some gluteus max.
It's a paralax, you dig?
You move around
The small gets big. It's a rig
It's action -- reaction
Random interaction.
So who's afraid
Of little abstraction
Can't get no satisfaction
From the facts?
You'd better run, homeboy
A fact's a fact
From Nome to Rome, boy.

What's the deal? Spin the wheel.
If the dice are hot -- take a shot.
Play your cards. Show us what you got --
What you're holding.
If the cards are cold
Don't go folding.
Lady Luck is golden;
She favors the bold. That's cold
Stop throwing stones --
The night has a thousand saxaphones.
So get out there and rock,
And roll the bones.
Get busy!

The Morning Summary, 6/12

Sad to see the numbers fall so far.  But it can't be helped.

It is a fluid situation.  Once something gets decided, I have to live with it.  You know, I have this tendency to be really decisive when I make up my mind.  That is a weakness, because it tends towards rashness.  Like selling my truck.  No need to have gotten in such a hurry.  If I had waited just one week, the situation would have been quite different now.

Everybody has their own dragons to slay.  That appears to be one of mine.

After making one mistake, I don't want to get too rash and make decisions that I'll have to live with for a long time.  So, I'll take my time here.  But, at some point, you have to act.  Hopefully, it is the right decision when you do act.

I am very tempted to go do something.  Like buy a replacement vehicle.  If I do that, I have made a financial commitment that could be another mistake.  Those could multiply and grow into bigger and bigger mistakes until you find yourself in a real crisis.  I'm not there now, but I can see how I am heading in that direction.

I need to think about this.

Thank all of you who are still coming by.  I'll keep you posted on what is going on.  The blog will continue, but maybe at not quite so strong of a pace.   I'd like to go all out, but I can't.  At least not now.