Gold and the debt

I return to this topic with a longer term chart than the last post.  The last post dealt with debt ceiling hikes, as opposed to the actual debt itself.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Radomski/jul292011.html

The thing that caught my attention is the crossover in the lines.  This is also the case with the debt ceiling chart, but with that chart, the crossover began a few years later.  This crossover began in the early nineties, while the other crossover in the shorter term chart began in the late nineties.  What does it mean?  Well, since debt ceiling raises must precede actual debt increases, then that means a timing factor, which I will interpret here as acceleration.  It means an acceleration of debt.  Not hard to see in this chart, as the line is going up at a faster and faster rate.

We were told in the nineties that we had a surplus, yet the debt increased anyway.  It hardly skipped a beat, as the "surplus" didn't last long.   I think this is indicative of an increasing reliance upon deficit spending and the consequent debt that results.

In the earlier years, you can see where the gold window was shut by Nixon.  The price of gold exploded.  With the explosion of debt, I think this should indicate a similar explosion in the price of gold in the years ahead, unless something significant happens.

The thing that stopped gold's sharp rise in the late seventies and eighties was the fact that the Fed got serious about inflation.  It appears to me that they've gotten serious again about inflation, except now, they are trying to start it.

The Morning Summary, 7/30

It has been awhile since I've done one of these.  It is a state of the blog type of post, which, for awhile, became a habit.  Now the habit has been replaced by another habit, which was the status quo ante.

I like to blog, but the wages have been rather poor. Actually, the wages have been zero. It would seem that there isn't much of a market for blogs these days. At least, for a blog like this, which surprises me a bit.

From time to time, there has been adjustments that I have made with respect to this reality. And it seems like we are about to enter another one of these adjustment periods. In short, I need to decide what I will be doing next. I want to write, but to do it, I need to make some money at it.

The idea of writing a book has crossed my mind. If I were to combine all these posts into a book, as Google would like to sell to me, then I would already have a book. As of now, there are over 1700 posts. To be sure, not all of them have been exactly gems of writing, but if there were some serious editing, you might have enough material here to make a decent book. But I won't be doing that, though.

Should the book be a novel, or nonfiction, or what exactly?  I have to consider that.  I think a novel would possibly work with my usual material, because space is a speculative thing still.  If I were to put it into a story, as opposed to a series of posts in a blog, it may do a little better.  The trouble is, I have had no experience writing novels, or telling stories for that matter.  It is a new skill that I would have to learn.

Nonfiction serves my style better, but it may have more of a problem in getting acceptance.  The public may expect you to be someone of eminence, and as of yet, I haven't achieved anything like that.

Amigo, quiero vivir en México

Improving Mexican economy draws undocumented immigrants home from California

"It's now easier to buy homes on credit, find a job and access higher education in Mexico," Sacramento's Mexican consul general, Carlos González Gutiérrez, said Wednesday. "We have become a middle-class country."

Mexico's unemployment rate is now 4.9 percent, compared with 9.4 percent joblessness in the United States.

Is there any room for us gringos down south, amigos?

 

What is this debt that we're talking about?

http://innovation.cq.com/media/debt_components/

Of the 14.3 trillion, the Fed holds 1.4 trillion, which I wrote about before.   That must mean that the Treasury owes the Fed this amount.  If the Treasury coined 1.4 trillion, it can then be used to pay off this debt, thereby lowering the debt outstanding by that amount, right?  Then "new" debt could be issued that would be under the debt ceiling imposed by Congress.  I know this probably sounds crazy, but what could prevent it?

The Treasury has the power to mint coins, if what I read is true.  Now, I don't know that they should really want to do this, but it may all be legal and above board.  If all of this is indeed true, then all we have here is a lot of huffing and puffing over nothing.

Brief comment on debt limit

I didn't say this in my fax yesterday, but I wish I had:
"Anybody, and I do mean anybody, who is in Congress now, and isn't concentrated on solving the problem, which is the massive deficit, as opposed to getting some sort of political victory, shouldn't even have their jobs. In such a case as that, they are unworthy of the public's trust."

Forgive them, for they don't know what they do

The Platinum Coin Option

I am convinced that the left, no matter who they are, they economic/social status, nor they educational attainment, have the slightest idea what the hell they are doing when they advocate this idea.  But there it is.

The US *WILL* Be Downgraded

by Karl Denninger

That means cutting the deficit by more than one trillion dollars a year at present run rates.

Yes, that's about what I thought.  The results appear to be about what I thought.  Who knows what is going to happen.  It isn't good.

My fax to members of Congress

With respect to the second debt limit bill the Speaker has put forth for a vote:

As of this writing, Senator Reid has threatened to defeat this bill immediately, if passed. The question arises, why pass this bill at all? It is a political exercise only. Then a second questions arises, why should I send this fax with regards to a bill that won't become law?

The answer to the second is the same as the first. Thus, my letter is my own political exercise in our democratic system. I now offer my opinion, for what it is worth. Frankly, I think the idea that the government will default is just a bunch of hype.

I just found on the internet this morning several ways to fund the government aside from taxes and borrowing. There is no need for all this grandstanding. Why not just solve problems, instead? It becomes much more difficult to solve a problem in the heat of the moment. Let the passions ease and solutions to the problems can be discussed, hopefully in a rational manner.

I am not indifferent toward the process. But I am disappointed that reason can't seem to prevail. For if reason can't prevail in our highest councils, where are we?

My main concern: I am, in principle, against any bill to raise the debt limit without a balanced budget amendment being passed and sent to the states for ratification. But I realize that in the current political environment, such a goal may not be reachable.

Note:

posted on my blog "Boots and Oil"

Reid: Senate Dems Will Defeat Boehner Plan Tonight

Brian Beutler

Are they sure, really sure, that they want to do that? Two bills from the House, and so far, none from the Senate. Not even a budget in two years either.

They aren't negotiating. They are dictating.

House Republicans challenge Senate Democrats

By Donna Smith | Reuters

Looks like they may have the votes after all.

As for Harry Reid and the Democrats, this will be the second bill that the House has passed in order to raise the debt limit, and that they will have rejected. The only complaint that they have is that it will be a short term raise.

The Democrat controlled House during the Reagan years raised the debt 17 times in just 8 years. It doesn't seem like a valid complaint, if history is a guide.

Inside the World's Most Humane Prison

If this doesn't show the dissolution of European elitism, nothing else can.  Here's this guy, Breivik, who kills all these people, and he gets a slap on the wrist.  They seem to be begging for this type of thing to happen.

(Platinum) Pennies From Heaven (UPDATED)

via The Moderate Voice 

• Sovereign governments such as the United States can print new money. However, there’s a statutory limit to the amount of paper currency that can be in circulation at any one time.
  
  Ironically, there’s no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds.
• Balkin also suggests selling of government assets to the Federal Reserve for $2 trillion for later buyback at $1 as well as a previously-discussed option to interpret Congress’ promises to spend as “debts” that cannot be “questioned” under the 14th Amendment.
• UPDATE: The statute here appears to be 31 U.S.C. § 5112(k), which reads:
  
  The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

I don't know if all that checks out, but what if it does?  It means all of this  hullabaloo has been for nothing.  The President already has enough power to do whatever he wishes, provided that this checks out.

What is the practical result of this outcome, should it occur?  It would increase the monetary base by a significant amount.  I would think it to be inflationary.

Fact or Fiction?: Archimedes Coined the Term "Eureka!" in the Bath

The famed mathematician made many important scientific contributions. Was this exclamation really one of them?

I'm using this story in connection with proving or disproving the validity of the E-cat.

It seems to me that the big breakthrough in getting acceptance for this device is to remove all controversy about its validity.  All attempts to do this up to this point have failed.  What could make the difference?

You could get the preeminent scientist of the times, as the King did in the Eureka story linked above.  Or you could devise an experiment yourself.  I think such an experiment could be devised that would end all controversy.  That would mean anybody could, if he thinks he can do it, devise an Archimedes type test of the device.

Why use this story?  Because there is something familiar about the story.  In the Eureka story, the King suspected that he was being cheated.  He believed that a base metal was being substituted for gold in his crown.  He wanted a way to discover this without destroying the crown and asked Archimedes if he would accept that challenge.  The E-cat is similar.  Most folks consider it a fake.  Rossi won't allow his device to be taken apart and examined closely.  This is similar to the King not wanting to destroy the crown.  So, a way needs to be found to prove/disprove the E-cat without Rossi having to give up his secret.

There are those who think that he has already done this.  But, why the continuing controversy?  Evidently, the demonstration wasn't good enough.  Rossi has declined to do any further demonstrations.  But, he says anyone who buys his E-cat can conduct their own demonstrations.  Very well.  Someone will have to buy an E-cat and conduct an appropriate experiment.

This shouldn't be too difficult.  In fact, I think one of these experiments is all but guaranteed at some point in the future.

Big things are happening

Good morning.  I'll start off with what I've been covering lately and that is this debt limit negotiations.  Yes, it is a big thing.

Let's start off with this story, about how Boehner's attempt to get a vote on his latest debt limit plan.  It is in reference to a New York Times story, which I won't bother to read.  However, there is something significant about all this.  It reflects the split within the Republican party.  This split could get bigger, which may be what the Democrats are hoping for.

I read some transcripts of the Limbaugh show yesterday, which expressed the fear that if Boehner caves, the party may split into a third party.  The concern is, and it is a valid one, that this will guarantee a second Obama term.

However, the Democrats have some divisions of their own.  There are some old hard liners who don't want to give an inch on spending.  These are the ones who are threatening a primary challenge to Obama if he continues to compromise.  And they call the Republicans intransigent.

What does it all mean?  Well, it could mean a major political realignment is underway.  The two factions of each party are losing their grip on their caucuses.  If either break off from the main, they will doom their party's chances in the next election.  Evidently, the goal post moving decried by Boehner with respect to the tax increase, was evidence of Obama keeping his caucus together.  Boehner may have to do the same on some level if the Republican caucus is going to stay in one piece.  The result could be no compromise at all.  That's because each wing of the respective party's are not willing to compromise.  But compromise is necessary.  What happens if the majorities decide to ignore their bases of their respective parties?

Whatever happens will be a big deal.  If there is no compromise at all, the effect will be a partial government shutdown at the very least.  Furthermore, Obama may invoke the 14th amendment option and start raising the debt on his own authority.  This will be a very bad precedent.  In the meantime, the world is not coming to a standstill.  If something happens in the world, we won't be able to deal with it as well as we need to.  Not a very pretty picture.

In the longer run, this could result in major shifts in the parties.  The old red blue alignments could be about to change.  It is said that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania could be in play in the next Presidential election.  If so, that could doom a second Obama term, but that would depend upon a united party in opposition.  Right now, that isn't guaranteed by any means.

Are the Republicans just negotiating with themselves?

They've already passed a debt ceiling bill. Where's the equivalent one in the Senate?  Ask Al Franken.

It is hard to see how the Democrats can complain about the debt ceiling when they haven't passed one themselves.

If the Democrats can't produce a bill in the Senate, how can they complain about the Republicans?  Hmm?

If the Democrats won't pass their own bill, why are they Republicans working on another?  They've already passed one.  Let the Dems pass one first.   If the Republicans pass another one anyway, they should stop in their tracks and not pass another.  Otherwise, they are letting the Democrats force them into negotiating with themselves.

U.S. Army's $150m 'super-blimp' high-altitude airship in crash landing just hours after launch

Reminds me a bit of JP Aerospace.  There was some news on their blog today.  They may be getting ready for some missions that will be related to the Dark Sky Station which is one of their goals.

source: Daily Mail UK

 

Ann Coulter: NEW YORK TIMES reader kills dozens in Norway

She really gives em hell, doesn't she?  Gives it right back at em, just like you should.  Good on her.

These are the same people who claimed that Sarah Palin had something to do with the Giffords shooting.  Their schtick is getting old.

Debt ceiling hikes and gold prices

Something happened in the nineties, can you see it?

Back in that time, the gold price was below the debt limit line as plotted above.  It looks like some time in 1997 that the line crossed under the debt limit line has been there since.  It looks as if the price of gold has been increasing along with the debt, as if in a cause and effect.

By the way, the gold price doesn't seem to get out of control until 2006.  Gold was said to be in a bull market prior to that, but it really doesn't look that way here until 2006.  That would mean the bull market is only about 5 years old.

I think monetary policy has had a lot to do with the gold price lately.  Since 2008, it has been ultra easy money.  Monetary policy was starting to get tight at the 2006 time frame, as I recall.  Fed funds were actually going into an inverted yield curve from 2006 to 2007.  That only changed with the subsequent meltdown in the financial sector in 2008, which caused the Fed to aggressively combat the rapidly deteriorating situation.

The Fed ran out of room on interest rates, then switched to quantitative easing.  That was gold bullish, without a doubt.

This was intended to show that the debt was driving gold prices, however, it may be more of a function of monetary policies, as Milton Friedman always said.  The 2006 spike was probably related to the previous easy monetary policy, but didn't last.  The financial meltdown is what has been driving the gold price since. The Fed has been aggressive in fighting the effects of the economic slowdown.  The results are the higher gold prices.

E-cats for autos and space propulsion?

I think the answer to those questions are probably "no".  There's not enough energy being produced for that.

It is likely to be most useful in CHP.  Here's something I found on the journal of nuclear physics-
Cool Energy FAQs page pdf

This looks to useful for processing the kind of heat the E-cat appears to be producing.  It can make electricity off of the heated water, or working fluid that isn't being used for heating purposes.

As for space, the E-cat may be useful in life support.  It could take some of the load off of solar cells.

Pelosi Rips Into GOP Over Debt Negotiations

Key quote: "We get the sacrifice, they get the wealth."

This gives me the opportunity to write about this phenomenon that Pelosi alludes to in this video. That is, that the Republicans are "for the rich".

But that is not how the votes go. Let's compare how "the rich" vote as compared to a key Democrat constituency, black people. Blacks tend to vote nearly 100% Democrat, but how do "the rich" vote? Actually, from my recollection, in the 2000 election, Al Gore took that vote. So, how does this help Republicans politically? Even if the Gore vote was an outlier, it is pretty obvious that there is no comparison between how "the rich" votes with respect to Republicans and how black vote with respect to Democrats. If the Republicans really were for "the rich", they don't seem to get much out of it politically. If anything, it goes against them.

Who knows? Maybe that's why they call it the "Stupid party". Perhaps there is another explanation. Maybe the Republicans are just trying to do what is the best for the country as a whole. Maybe they aren't trying to help out preferred groups, as the Democrats are doing in case of the blacks, who will, in turn, give them a quid pro quo and support them. Couldn't it be the case that cutting the deficit really is in the best interest of the country? Does that make the Republicans stupid for just trying to do their duty to the people?

On Islamophobia and Right Wing Extremism

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D., The Jawa Report

Rather than use quotes, I'll just give my impressions.

Dr. Shackleford seeks to distance himself from so called extremists and so called Islamophobes.  He correctly points out that those who use those terms are using them for political reasons.

These terms are not particularly useful, as he points out.  He does acknowledge their existence, however. [note: excuse the poor proofreading, I left out the word "not", which I put in italics here for emphasis]

I don't agree that Islam is as harmless as he seems to believe.  To be a Muslim means something, therefore, it should not be taken lightly.  To claim allegiance to their book, the Koran, means something.  We need to understand what it means to be one of these people and decide if that is a good thing for our society to have them around.  To be a Muslim doesn't mean that they are just like everybody else.  Something about them makes them different, and they don't seem to mix well with any society on this planet.  Failure to acknowledge that doesn't win many brownie points with yours truly.

Paul Krugman tries to make his case for liberalism (again)

I'm not even going to bother to read what he says this time.  It is clear from the title of his post

The Cult That Is Destroying America

So there's the link, if you want to read his stuff.  I think I've seen about all I want to see of this turkey.

He is right about one thing, as far as I can make out from his title.  This country cannot stand both liberals and conservatives running the country at the same time.  One or the other must go.

Abraham Lincoln once quoted the New Testament:  " A house divided against itself cannot stand."  It is true now as it was then.   There is no getting around the fact that something has to got to get decided for all time.

An Open Letter to the House GOP

Fred Thompson wants to declare victory and go home.

Evidently all of this was a political exercise, just as I thought. Well, that is a reasonable outcome. The people voted for divided government, and this is what you will get. Trying to get more than that will be pushing your luck a bit too far. That is what I think that Fred is attempting to get across.

I think he may be right.

WH Press Secretary Booed at Briefing

He gets booed for saying that some of the press left early, implying that they weren't doing their jobs.

Far-right leader in Europe speaks of growing anger against Muslims

The leader of a British far-right group to which Anders Behring Breivik claims links called the attacks a sign of "growing anger" in Europe against Muslim immigrants, while a politician in a party in Italy's governing coalition called some of the gunman's ideas "great."

• 'Terrorist's' Lawyer Calls Him Likely Insane
• Stephen Lennon, leader of the English Defense League, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he does not condone Breivik's rampage
• Mario Borghezio, ... who belongs to Italy's Northern League party, told a mainstream Italian radio station that ...."Some of the ideas he expressed are good, barring the violence, some of them are great," 
•  Breivik has confessed to the twin attacks on Oslo's government district and a summer camp for the youth wing of Norway's ruling Labor Party
• Sonato, an English blogger ..., told The Associated Press ...he never had any dealings with Breivik and condemned the massacre.  "I'm nothing whatever to do with this," he said.The 35-year-old blogger said he fled England almost two years ago after being arrested for stirring racial hatred and settled in Malta.

It seems that you can get into a lot of trouble for just speaking your mind in Europe.  Just saying.   What are they afraid of?  Don't tell me because of something like this.  After all that they've done to suppress it?  No, that doesn't seem right to me.

Goodbye Sweden

I managed to find this while starting to take an interest in this Oslo business in Norway recently.

While doing that, I came across a video which the killer made just prior to his spree. He appears to be rather well read and informed as to history and culture. Far greater than average, far greater than I am.

The part that gives trouble is the violence. If he produced this first, without killing anybody, he probably would have been punished in some politically correct way. Instead, I think he may present a bit of a problem for the multicultis. They have to find a way to discredit him while keeping what he said under wraps. Or to misrepresent in some important way. Since they have no capital punishment there, he won't face the same fate as Timothy McVeigh.

Anyway, back to this video. It shows what the multicultis are doing to Sweden, and probably all around over Western Civilization. Our civilization is under attack, there is no doubt about it.

The question is, how best to defend it? Update and quick note: the below video is no way connected to the killer. That video was different from this one.




Update:

Here is the link to the killer's video

Giant Water Parabola Solar Cooker 1000f where there is water there is fire slow motion popcorn

This is rather ingenious. But it is not practical.

Who Holds the Federal Debt

Interesting chart.

China and Japan hold 2 trillion of the 9.6 trillion held by the public. The amount held by these two countries sounds like it is more than it really is. ( in my opinion) But the Fed holds 1.4 trillion, which means what? The Fed isn't the government, but it is closely connected to the government. This is likely printing your own money and putting it in your own bank and calling it "debt". If the government never paid back the Fed, who would care?

There is also a link to the history of debt limit, so I'll look at that next. Note: after looking at it, I didn't find it very useful.

A Trillion-Dollar Gimmick

HBC Publication(House Budget Committee)

•  The Reid plan relies on the inaccurate assumption that surge-level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is scheduled to continue over the next decade.
• assumes the continuation of surge-level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the President has neither requested this funding nor signaled that he might request it.
• Rather than defend this gimmick on the merits, supporters of the Reid plan are defending it by claiming that House Republicans “also included” this $1 trillion in savings... (not true)
• the House-passed budget cuts spending by $6.2 trillion relative to the President’s request.

This looks like the Democrats are not budging on spending, while claiming that the Republicans are not being reasonable.  Something smells.

It may well be a gimmick, but that is about what I've expected all along.

Update:

I clicked on another of the publications linked to in the above article.   A few snippets from that:

• Since last December, when the President’s Fiscal Commission proposed roughly $4 trillion in deficit reduction, the figure has become a kind of de facto standard for measuring subsequent budgets; 
• it is necessary to establish a common and impartial yardstick – a “baseline”
• A “baseline” is a projection of future spending, revenues, deficits, and debt. Claims of deficit reduction are measured against the underlying baseline chosen.

This is where the shell games get played.  Claims can be made of savings, but it all depends on what baseline is chosen.  If the baseline is unrealistic, then the claims are too.

I think you just need to look at the bottom line:  there are going to be trillion dollars deficits for as far as the eye can see unless something changes.  Most claims, therefore, are rhetoric.

Update:

I may as well continue with this line; here's a pdf file, which gives a full discussion of baselines

• Constructed this way, the BEA [Budget Enforcement Act]current law baseline can generate misleading projections – and this problem is especially pronounced today. For example, current policies, widely accepted, call for a reduction in spending over the next several years for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; but because the baseline assumes the current level of war spending will continue and grow with inflation, it overstates future discretionary spending by sizeable amounts; and it is more than $1 trillion above the war spending request in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget.
• The discrepancy is even greater with taxes. Under current law – and due to a procedure imposed by the Senate 4 – the marginal tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003 are scheduled to expire after 2012, as are relief from the alternative minimum tax [AMT] and the current estate tax compromise.5 The expirations would cause tax rates to revert to their higher, pre-2001 levels, creating a $3.525-trillion tax increase over 10 years. Further, extending any of these existing tax policies beyond their scheduled expiration is treated as a new tax “cut” relative to the BEA baseline. Hardly anyone expects all these tax increases to occur; but, as noted, the BEA baseline assumes they will. Thus this tax baseline creates two significant sources of confusion
• To provide a true apples-to-apples comparison of the President’s original budget submission and the House Republican budget, it is necessary to establish a single, consistent baseline against which to measure both. That baseline should be policy-neutral; that is, it should incorporate a realistic and impartial assessment of what are genuinely existing, and expected, policies. This analysis employs a “current policy” baseline that seeks to meet these aims. 

The Current Policy Baseline, the House-Passed Budget,
and the President’s Budget

• Relative to a current policy baseline, the House-passed budget reduces spending by $5.5 trillion, revenues by $637 billion, and deficits by $4.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Debt held by the public under the House budget would be $5.1 trillion lower in fiscal year 2021. In contrast, the President’s budget, measured against this same current policy baseline, would increase outlays by $741 billion, raise taxes by $1.2 trillion, and reduce deficits by only $453 billion over the next 10 years. Debt held by the public would be only $389 billion lower in fiscal year 2021 under the President’s budget, compared to current policy.

The reduction in spending is the sticking point for Democrats. They'll never go for that while in power.

DeMint Still Fighting for 'Cut, Cap and Balance'

Having one's cake and eating it too

The President gave a speech last night about this debt limit business.

What does it all mean? I am not referring to the speech, you can get that from the talking heads below:



No. What does it all mean? I think it all means that you have to pay for what you get. If you want all these government programs, you are going to have to pay for them. The Democrats won't cut these programs. On the other hand, the Republicans will because they don't want the Big Liberal Government that the Democrats want. So, it all means higher taxes because borrowing has been maxxed out. If you can't bring yourself to accept that something has to give, then you will not do anything about it. The final result will be a dollar collapse and hyperinflation. This must be addressed somehow. Either by drastic cuts in government, drastic increases in taxes, or a combination of both.

Neither side will budge off their basic positions. That's like trying to have your cake and eat it too. It won't work. Something has to give. And it will.

Update:

If Obama's claims were correct, and the reports seem to indicate that at some of it was true, then they were 400 billion apart on a grand bargain.  Just find the 400 billion in defense cuts and you may have a deal that is hard for Dems to refuse.  It would be giving in on a Republican issue that would obviate a tax increase for now.

Existence of God particle to be decided by next year

It has been speculated upon for decades and at the weekend there were hints that the existence of the highly sought-after “God particle” had finally been confirmed.

• Not!  "But at a press conference on Monday, the physicists in charge of the Large Hadron Collider said that they had only established where the Higgs boson was not to be found, and that its location continues to elude them."
• they now expect to know whether or not the most-wanted particle exists within 18 months.
• But on Friday researchers suggested they were close to achieving one of their main aims – catching sight of the elusive Higgs boson.
• “we know everything about it, except if it exists”.
• However Prof Heuer said even disproving the Higgs’s existence would be a “breakthrough”, as the question would still be settled and a new search would be on to explain the fundamentals of the physical world.

While studying bosons lately, the Higgs Boson made its appearance to me, at least.  It is in the literature, and that where I found it.

Moses went to the mountain to look for God, but these guys are going underground.  That sounds kinda funny, once you think of it.  Maybe the Higgs boson isn't what they think, eh?

Well, that's all for today.  Thanks for coming by and have a great evening.

People like to be scared

But not too much.  This brings to mind the movie Jurassic Park, in which the dialogue follows between Ellie and Dr. Grant.  She scolds him a bit because he scares the kid

She didn't seem to mind that he scared the kid, but not too much, you see.

I brought this up because it reminded me of something, which I seem to be fighting.  I want more pageviews, but I am fighting the above observation.  I'd rather that people would act differently, but since they won't, maybe I should stop fighting it?

Here's where that pic came was derived from, in case you're interested.

Electron-Phonon Coupling at the Tungsten Surface

Another BECNF post here.  At first blush, this may not seem relevant since BECNF doesn't mention this coupling.  I got interested in it because of phonons, as phonons can act as bosons, which are relevant to the theory.

There may also be an objection with respect to Tungsten, since the BECNF is about Ni H systems, not tungsten.

What caught my attention, besides the phonon reference was this quote near the end:

This is an important dissipation channel for energy and will affect chemical reactions at surfaces, such as reactions on catalysts. Another interesting implication is the possibility of an electron-phonon-mediated superconductivity that is confined to the surfaces of metals and has a greatly enhanced critical temperature as compared to ordinary superconductors. [emphasis added]

As I noted before, "cold fusion" has been said to be a surface effect phenomenon.

A closer look at this paper allows another quote that I find interesting:

Since these "many-body" effects are often more prominent in physical systems with less than three dimensions  [ comment: as you would find on the surface] carefully prepared surfaces furnish good two-dimensional test beds for examining these effects in detail.

BCEs in this context probably qualify as a type of "many-body" effects referred to here.

Rossi's catalyst then, could be key.  Maybe that is why it is such a big secret.

The Hill: Bill would force Obama to pay Social Security, military if US defaults

Tea Party conservatives hope to make a push on the House floor to force President Obama to avoid a national default if Congress fails to raise the debt limit.

I'd say the chance of default is low at this point.  Most likely, a deal will be made.  If you consider that the 2.7 trillion offer by Reid is about the same money that Obama was talking about, then consider that it is without the tax reform that Boehner thought they had with Obama before he "moved the goalposts", then you can see it is, from the numbers, about the same deal.  However, there's no entitlement changes, most likely, and no increase in taxes either.  Nor in tax collections that were expected from the tax reforms.

There's no way that you are going to get the Democrats to give up some entitlement spending without getting taxes.  That explains the goal post moving by Obama.   The higher taxes were an absolute necessity for them to accept the cuts (if they really were they way they appeared).  Boehner won't get the tax reform either, because the Democrats are ideologically opposed to lower rates even if it means higher tax collections.  That's what Obama once said about capital gains.  He said he would still prefer higher rates even if tax collections are less because that would be more fair.  Therefore, the Democrats can never accept lower rates and lower spending.  Won't happen.

Hence, the cosmetic deal that appears to do much, but does little.  It's all a tempest in a teapot.

MSNBC video about debt negotiations (lefty pov)

But Reid's plan was already being privately rejected by Republicans concerned that the cuts it contains would prove illusory.

Looks like a phony cut combined with an increase in the debt limit.  In other words, kick the can down the road.  This may be about as good as it will get.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Powerline Prize Finalists

This one is number 8. Boy, I think there must be some good entries there. This one is good enough to win, but is only number 8.



Update:

Here's another entry that didn't finish as high

Obama fears losing reelection more than default

by Dan Spencer, RedState

Boehner said. “I’m not worried about the next election. I told the president months ago: Forget about the next election!” 

There may be a test of that theory coming up.

Pauli exclusion principle and the BECNF theory

I'm still trying to get my mind around this theory.  The next question is this:  How does a BEC suppress the Coulomb Barrier and allow "cold fusion"?

The answer?  It must be the Pauli Exclusion Principle

It causes atoms to take up the space they do, since electrons cannot all congregate in the lowest-energy state but must occupy higher energy states at a distance from lower-energy electrons, therefore matter made of atoms occupies space rather than being condensed.

As we saw in the last post, distance is key in the Coulomb Barrier

In order to accomplish nuclear fusion, the particles involved must first overcome the electric repulsion to get close enough for the attractive nuclear strong force to take over to fuse the particles. 

Therefore, the BEC allows the atoms to get close enough for the strong force to take over and fusion takes place.

Update 7/26

You know, this wasn't very clearly written.  The point was supposed to be about the Pauli Exclusion Principle and somehow this didn't get explained.  Very well, let me try again.  The Pauli Exclusion Principle is what makes matter the way that it is.  Matter takes up space, as mentioned above.  The Pauli Exclusion Principle is why:  two atoms, which must obey this principle, cannot share the same quantum state, and therefore must be far apart.  For this reason, they are called "fermions", because they obey this principle.  Bosons do not.   As Bose and Einstein predicted, bosons will condense under appropriate conditions.  This means that the atoms of matter will get closer together.  The BECNF theory posits that a condensate is forming that is allowing the atoms to get close enough together in order to allow fusion to take place.  Under normal conditions, this will not happen.  The BECNF theory explains under what conditions these condensates may be forming which are allowing the Coulomb barrier to be overcome which will allow fusion at low temperatures.

With respect to the Coulomb barrier, fusion can take place either by the above theory, if proven correct, or by very high temperatures, which is the way it is being attempted by the hot fusioneers.  Either way may work in theory, but what separates the two is that Rossi may have found out how to do this in a commercially feasible way, which would be quite an achievement.

Greenback’s birthday

The US dollar, which turned 150 this week, is finally starting to act its age.

In 1861, people getting paid in the untried new paper currency initially were wary, sending its value sharply lower versus specie. The phrase “not worth a Continental” – a reference to paper dollars issued to finance the Revolutionary War eight decades earlier – showed their scepticism about fiat currency. They feared the dollar, created to finance the Union’s war against 11 rebel states who had issued their own dollar three months earlier, would suffer the same fate.

Well, the Confederacy didn't last.  Paper currencies don't last either, so I have heard.   It has been a gradual process, but it is also showing a trend towards the same instability as all fiat currencies in history.  Our current debt crisis is testimony to that.

 

From Drudge, Debt negotiations stories

As deadline looms, both parties craft debt plans Washington Times

Also: CURL: Is Obama a pathological liar?

White House stokes debt-ceiling crisis  by By Jennifer Rubin  Washington Post


I think Obama may have been outmaneuvered. But this story isn't over yet.

Potato chips: Here’s why you can’t eat just one

Essentially it activates cannabis-like compounds in our body.

Uh oh! I smell an attempt to regulate potato chips. That does it. If the government does that, I'm going on the wawpath.

Obama In 2008 Was ‘Hope,’ In 2012 He’ll Use ‘Politics Of Fear’

Chris Matthews "Tingling Leg" Show Panelist says:




Matthews Tingly Leg said that (with respect to a polling of his regulars who want the President to go to the center) was "scary".

On the Compromiser-in-Chief and Elizabeth Drew's Article

via Ari Melber for Huffington Post

An alternative point of view from the left side of the political divide

1. a President, apparently, who embraces anti-spending conservatism. 
2. the tea party has turned positions once on the outer edge of conservative politics, like dismantling Medicare, into a minimum litmus test for GOP candidates.
3. argues that Obama has now traded unpopular but necessary Keynesianism for swing voter posturing.
4. The key allegation in Drew's article is that Obama is not only giving too much away ...but that he is doing so to politically save only himself.
5. Obama would not only fail to impress independent voters, he'd ensure a drubbing on a series of future fights, large and small, with his unreasonable opponents.  

There you have it.  We have spending that is the highest its ever been as a percentage of GDP, but the Democrats are innocent of trying to use this crisis for their own benefit.  Let's get real, they are trying to make the deficits permanent so as to give an excuse for a higher rate of taxation.  They aren't winning that battle, because if they were, the Republicans would be running scared right now.  But look who is, if you believe their own words here.

What are magnons?

Good morning. This BECNF theory is on my mind this morning, so I'll start with that as my first post. I found the blog below in my quest to understand the theory, and that starts with understanding quasiparticles and such.

by Doug Natelson of nanoscale views

1. Another in my continuing series trying to explain some condensed matter concepts in comparatively jargon-free language.
2. electron-like quasiparticles, phonons, and plasmons. Now we consider magnons, also known as "spin waves".
3. Magnons, as the name suggests, are intimately related to magnetism.
4. there are magnetic moments associated with (some or all of) the atoms in the material, and you can think of these moments as little arrows. 
5. the system can lower its energy by having the moments tend to align with each other.
6. A magnon is a collective excitation where the relative alignment between neighboring magnetic moments is spatially described by some wavelength 

I think of the difference between quasiparticles and particles as the difference between waves at the beach vs the water itself.  Get the analogy?  You can have waves in solids, they are called phonons.  You can have waves in magnetism, therefore, these are called magnons.  I think I've got it.

By the way, I haven't looked up plasmons.  I take it that these are waves too.

Now, the thing that makes these of interest to me is that they can become BECs.  The theory is that these BEC's in the magnon case might be negating the Coulomb barrier which will allow fusion to take place.

Update:

I am adding the blog "nanoscale views" to the sidebar in the section of interesting reading.  This post will be categorized appropriately and labeled "sidebar entry" so as to be able to trace the history of the blog.

Sonny & Cher The Beat Goes On

The Beat Goes On in DC too. No deal yet.



That's it for today. Thanks for coming by and have a great evening.

BEC and LENR revisted

Note:  BEC means Bose Einstein Condensate, LENR means Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

Curiosity got the better of me.  This stuff is so esoteric that it is tough to read about, much less describe.  Let's stick with the easy stuff first.

Let's review what I've posted on the subject so far:

1. Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System
2. Bose--Einstein Condensate (video) 
3. Just asked a question of Mr. Rossi 
4. Statistical correlation for the composite Boson 
5. Bose Einstein Condensates and the E-cat 
6. Bose Einstein Condensate and LENR 
7. Rossi's Self Sustaining One Megawatt Reactor 

These are all linked so that it is now easy to access each in case you feel the need for the review.

Here's what I got curious about. BEC's are always referred to as being near absolute zero.  However, there are predictions of BEC's at high temperatures.  But these BECs are not the same kind of BECs as the ones that are being referred to as being formed near absolute zero temperature.  The question then is this: How can we achieve fusion if the formation of a BEC at high temperature isn't possible for this type of material?  That's because the high temperature BECs are, shall we say, a bit exotic, for the want of a better term.

There is an attempt to explain by way of magnetism, see #7 above.  It seems that magnetism can be affected by temperature which allows the "bosons" to form.  That means the non exotic material must behave as bosons.  The non exotic material will be hydrogen and nickel.  However, the exotic material is said to be the material that can form bosons at this high temperature.  Can hydrogen and nickel do the same?  That is what this theory is claiming in the conclusion which I linked to in #7 above.

By the way, the "exotic material" I am referred to are called "magnons", or quasiparticles.  Another term, which I am looking at now, is called a "spin wave".  It is rather complicated stuff and I won't try to explain what, frankly, I don't understand.  Actually, the exotic material isn't material at all.  It may well be material in an unusual state.   It is a phenomena which is being exhibited, it is not a particle.   From the wikipedia:

These fictitious particles are typically called "quasiparticles" if they are fermions (like electrons and holes), and called "collective excitations" if they are bosons (like phonons and plasmons),[1] although the precise distinction is not universally agreed.

Then we are talking about "magnons" that can behave as bosons.  Ok, I think I get it.  It is in an excited state, also known as a magnon, but as far as a particle is concerned, it is still hydrogen and nickel.  It is acting in a collectively excited state, if it is a boson.   The boson state can be reached at a certain temperature called the Curie point, in which magnetism is affected.  This aids in allowing bosons to form because magnetism is affected at that temperature.  This is how you get "magnons".

I'll return to this subject in the future, but for now, I'll think I'll stop here.

The above posts and this one will now go into a separate category which will be labeled BECNF Ni-H Theory.   It will also get labeled as a sidebar entry, so as to trace the history of the labels for this blog.

E-cat has military potential?

From Next Big Future this one short paragraph:

If the controversial Rossi cold fusion system panned out and the extra weight and size was reduced, there could be superior power for exoskeletons and robots.

If it is controversial, then it needs to stop being controversial.  I think that will fast-track it toward rapid commercialization, or military use.

 

Four Dirty Secrets about Clean Energy

By Alex Epstein, FoxNews.com

1. Dirty Secret #1: If “clean energy” were actually cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t need a policy.
2. Dirty Secret #2: Clean energy advocates want to force us to use solar, wind, and biofuels, even though there is no evidence these can power modern civilization.
3. Dirty Secret #3: There are promising carbon-free energy sources--hydroelectric and nuclear--but “clean energy” policies oppose them as not “green” enough.
4. Dirty Secret #4: The environmentalists behind clean energy policy are anti-energy.

To be anti energy is the same as being anti growth.  Economic growth depends on the availability of cheap and abundant energy.  Take that away and you take away prosperity.  This is contrary to what Al Gore says, but he is wrong.

Krauthammer to PBS Host: You Manage to Introduce a ‘Hell of a Lot of Bias’

...on a shoestring ( as compared to the resources of Rupert Murdoch) PBS does get money from the government, I've heard.

The modern version of the Ant & The Grasshopper

Posted by izoneguy

Warning to left wing types, this will make you mad.  (probably)  You may even try to answer it with one of your own.

 

New charging stations will soon give electric cars freedom to roam

by Bill Sheets, Herald Writer

• While more than 50 charging stations are available to the public in the Seattle-Tacoma area, only a handful are up and running in areas north
• By the end of the year, the Schnells or anyone else with a chargeable vehicle will be able to drive an "electric highway" to Canada, Oregon or across Stevens Pass without having to worry about running out of juice.
• The state's new stations will be located 40 to 60 miles apart.
• ECOtality has built more than 400 charging stations so far in people's homes in the central Puget Sound area, in addition to the 50-plus public outlets, said Rich Feldman, Pacific Northwest regional manager for ECOtality.
• Most of the stations will be located at private retail locations such as shopping malls, where users sometimes may shop, eat or have coffee while charging up
• Almost all of the public stations operating now are free of charge.
• How to find charging stations

The free electricity part ought to get somebody's attention.  These type of vehicle work best in mild climates, such as in Seattle, Washington.  Houston gets pretty hot, and the air conditioner would run the battery down too fast.

Conan - Commericial Kings Rhett & Link Got Colonics "For Research"

There were some commercials that I haven't seen before. Like the one for "colonics".

Cold Fusion news

I've been focused on the debt talks and got behind on the latest on that front.  Cold Fusion Now has several interesting posts, if you are like me, and got behind on the news.

There was one article which was dated on the anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon, now over 42 years ago.  The mastery of energy will soon lead to the mastery of space.  This is what is holding space exploration back.  If the energy source is great enough, as it is with fusion, then single stage to orbit vehicles can be built.  These should make access to space more routine and therefore cheaper.  Access to space will become available to anyone who is interested in exploiting its vast economic potential.

Colonization will follow as people may want to settle space as they did the in the old frontier days in the US.

1. 
   

Roundup of debt limit news via Memeorandum

1. Can you say “debt bomb” five times fast? by  William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection
2. 'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body by Ryan Grim Huffington Post
3. Congress ditches Obama on debt talks by Manu Raju of Politico 
4. Responsibility for debt talks shifts to Congress, away from Obama  By Sam Youngman and Molly K. Hooper of The Hill

It looks to me like Obama missed the boat.  He got a little heat from his Democratic caucus and he decided to move the goalposts, as Boehner put it.  Also, he may have sensed a weakness in the Republican caucus and thought he could divide it for political effect.  It doesn't make him look like a statesman, but just an ordinary politician.  Politically, he could afford to take some heat from his caucus.  It is a bit late in the game for a primary challenge from disaffected Democrats.  He could have taken that small risk and make himself look statesmanlike for going for some cuts that weren't popular amongst his supporters.  And he could have had the grand bargain which he claimed that he wanted so that we may have had a start towards restoring some fiscal sanity in Washington.  He missed the boat, but it remains to be seen whether he will get reelected.

Morning Summary, 7/24

Good morning.  I got a late start this morning.  The "to do" list has kept me busy this morning.  Even though I've been busy, there's still more to do.  I'll take a break from the chores and do a little websurfing and see what's out there today.   Stay tuned.