Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Hutchison/Tesla's Bizarre Effects

Expand Messages
  • Steve Elswick
    Give the guy a platform on a level playing field, between the critics and the true believers, the truth is sure to come out. As it is now, all ideas not
    Message 1 of 61 , Jul 2, 1999
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Give the guy a platform on a level playing field, between the critics and
      the true believers, the truth is sure to come out. As it is now, all ideas
      not conforming to the status quo are subject to immediate rejection and the
      playing field is tilted nearly 90 degrees in favor of the status quo... they
      get to determine who gets grant money, etc... then again, I was always a
      firm believer in government NOT financing research as it forces those with
      opposing ideas to foot the bill of the competitors.
      steve
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Wallace Edward Brand <webrand@...>
      To: usa-tesla@onelist.com <usa-tesla@onelist.com>
      Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 7:28 PM
      Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Hutchison/Tesla's Bizarre Effects


      >From: Wallace Edward Brand <webrand@...>
      >
      >Without peer review, how can you distinguish someone with a unique idea,
      from
      >someone with a misguided idea, or someone who is a charlatan? Wallace
      Edward
      >Brand
      >
      >
      >Steve Elswick wrote:
      >
      >> From: "Steve Elswick" <exotic@...>
      >>
      >> Peer review for cutting edge technology is a misnomer. If a person has a
      >> truly unique idea then he has no equals... or peers by definition. So
      them
      >> you have two groups... those who support innovations, and those who
      protect
      >> the status quo. In either case can you hardly call one disinterested.
      >> Columbus's journey, if it required peer review/approval before being
      >> undertaken would have never happened as the "prevailing theory" or "fact"
      at
      >> the time was that the world was flat and he'd sail off the edge! That's
      why
      >> my magazine has no peer review, the critics and supporters are welcome to
      >> send letters to the editor or submit articles for possible publication in
      a
      >> future issue. It works great in stimulating new thought.
      >> Steve
      >> http://www.extoicresearch.com
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: Wallace Edward Brand <webrand@...>
      >> To: usa-tesla@onelist.com <usa-tesla@onelist.com>
      >> Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 11:59 AM
      >> Subject: Re: [usa-tesla] Hutchison/Tesla's Bizarre Effects
      >>
      >> >From: Wallace Edward Brand <webrand@...>
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >Fred McGalliard wrote:
      >> >
      >> >> From: Fred McGalliard <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...>
      >> >>
      >> >> Bert Hickman wrote:
      >> >> ...
      >> >> > Mainstream scientific journals use a peer review process that tends
      to
      >> >> > effectively block the publication of scientific studies that
      conflict
      >> >> > too greatly with accepted scientific thought/theory.
      >> >>
      >> >> I have observed some peer review taking place. Peer review is
      generally
      >> >> conducted by more or less disenterested scientests. They ask questions
      >> >> that address the validity and consistency of the data. If theory is
      >> >> provided, they will ask for consistent equations, definitions, sound
      >> >> math, that sort of thing. If they don't like the theory for some
      reason,
      >> >> they may be overly hard on it, but I can assure you that the peer
      review
      >> >> is not selected to keep new and revolutionary ideas out.[snip]
      >> >
      >> >"Peer review is generally conducted by more or less disenterested
      >> >scientests."
      >> >
      >> >Sometimes peer review is required as a condition of governmental grants.
      >> >When their is only a limited pot of money for grants and when only one
      >> >researcher has novel views, it is difficult for him to pass the peer
      >> >review. Bogdan Maglich had this problem when he was trying to get DOE
      >> >funding for his small scale fusion device based on ordered collisions of
      >> >particles in a self colliding orbit. An investigation by the General
      >> >Accoounting Office found that the peer reviewers, which were
      investigating
      >> >fusion based on heat and confinement resulting in random collisions,
      all
      >> >had conflicts of interest which affected their review. The peer review
      of
      >> >the tokamak crew could not be trusted.
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
      >> >
      >> >Looking for a new hobby? Want to make a new friend?
      >> >http://www.onelist.com
      >> >Come join one of 180,000 e-mail communities at ONElist!
      >> >
      >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >> >
      >>
      >> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
      >>
      >> With more than 20 million e-mails exchanged daily...
      >> http://www.onelist.com
      >> ...ONElist is home to the liveliest discussions on the Internet!
      >>
      >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
      >
      >How many communities do you think join ONElist each week?
      >http://www.onelist.com
      >More than 5,000! Create yours now!
      >
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
    • Wallace Edward Brand
      ... My recollection of the circumstances was that the President was trying to stop a very serious inflation. He had persuaded the union not to ask for an
      Message 61 of 61 , Jul 21, 1999
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim Farrer wrote:

        > From: Jim Farrer <jfarrer@...>
        >
        > Dear Fred Mc G.,
        >
        > I enjoy your comments and positions on the list greatly, and don't want to do in a friendship on
        > something which really doesn't make me a lot of difference (only because I feel so helpless to
        > accomplish anything positive).
        >
        > We seem to agree on the one very big item: our trust is not in our politicians.
        > Neither of us feels like toeing either party line. I feel that we can vote only Demopublican or
        > Republicrat, and find both distasteful.
        >
        > I recall vividly that the Marshall Plan was talked about endlessly after WW II for quite a few
        > years; that it was a plan to prevent future wars due to the haves versus the have nots. Spreading
        > our wealth around the world, bringing up its standard of living , and (I distinctly recall being
        > admonished) that our standard of living would still rise, but not as fast as if we kept all the
        > fruits of our labors. Sounded like a socialistic world then, and still does.
        >
        > U.S. Steel is no more. Fact. JFK did in fact force a steel price rollback, and did so by having
        > the CEO of U.S. Steel in the Oval Office.

        My recollection of the circumstances was that the President was trying to stop a very serious
        inflation. He had persuaded the union not to ask for an excessive wage by telling them that the steel
        companies would not raise their steel prices. The pledge he had made was based on the steel companies
        representations. After the unions settled, the steel companies did in fact raise their prices. On
        learning that, Kennedy was reported to have said, to my recollection, "My father told me that those
        guys are a bunch of bastards, but I never believed him." What they discussed in the oval office, I do
        not know but I do know that he asked the antitrust division to look into whether their simultaneous
        rise in prices ("their" being all the major steel companies) was actionable. Wallace Edward Brand

        > What was said I cannot say, but if you wish to think they
        > talked only of playing tiddlywinks with manhole covers, so be it. I think they talked tough. Most
        > of America's factories (and jobs) have moved overseas. We've been told that we are now a service
        > nation instead of a Producing Nation. Fact.
        >
        > Only question now is how bad a financial shape we are in what we do about it.. Many people look
        > only at the Grand Unified Stock Market Number and say we are really well off. I look at a
        > defense-spent-to-death Soviet Union, and our National Debt and feel we can't be far behind. We
        > cannot pay for the steel and TVs we are importing with anything real. Especially since so many of
        > our services (like so many of our banks and farms) are owned by foreign companies.
        >
        > Jim Farrer (other comments scattered below)
        >
        > Fred McGalliard wrote:
        >
        > > From: Fred McGalliard <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...>
        > >
        > > Jim. I am over 55 and will vote democratic only because I have been so
        > > utterly diselusioned by the republican version of party morality. I
        > > remember a lot of things.
        > >
        > > Jim Farrer wrote:
        > > > Dear Fred McG.:
        > > > Your reply is the standard democrat one. Party line.
        > >
        > > Jim. Focus on the issue. I am no historian, and have not studied the
        > > steel industry well enough to have a clue. It sounds right because that
        > > is the way many of our buisnesses manage to draw defeat from the jaws of
        > > victory. Based on what I observed and know about the auto industry, I
        > > find it easy to imagine that the steel industry impalled itself on it's
        > > own sword, probably with no little help from it's unions, the
        > > government, and just a smidgin from foreign competition.
        >
        > I have learned to focus on the way in which a debate is won by the democrats. Your words above ("it
        > sounds right...") is one such. My factual accusation of presidential crude pressure is forgotten
        > about, and something else substituted. Either a steel rollback was forced by the president, or it
        > wasn't. Look it up.
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > > Are you old enough to remember the day
        > > > in 1963 when Kennedy was killed? The last few days before, he publicly asked Ray Clough (as I
        > > > recall), CEO of U.S. Steel, for a price rollback to cancel his recent price increase. He
        > > > refused. He was then called in to the Oval Office (as it was known in those kinder, gentler
        > > > days) an audienced by the pres hisself. Once again, the plea for a price rollback. Once
        > > > again a refusal. The pres intoned that he probably had many lawyers prepare his tax returns,
        > > > that they were, in all probability clean and accurate. But, you know he said, that there can
        > > > be interpretations and interpretations. We'll just bring you up on tax evasion charges. You
        > > > may very well be entirely exonerated. But this will take five years at least, and you will
        > > > be ruined.
        > >
        > > Fascinating. Now this is a literal quote from the verified tapes of the
        > > meeting? You do understand that this information, if it is provable and
        > > accurate, is sufficient to convict the president of misuse of the powers
        > > of his office, and probably several other things I would not like to
        > > speculate on at this date. Is there a purpose here in vilifying the man,
        > > since now he can no longer respond to your charges?
        >
        > See above. As far as many citizens were concerned, this was indeed misuse of his powers of office.
        > I see that you feel it is grossly unfair of me to speak the truth of history in answer to your point
        > that big steel sat on its behind and took the short term 'out' to make all they could with old
        > factories. (another point I may add is the Democrat controlled labor unions balked for years at
        > cutting manpower by building new modern factories that would employ fewer people).
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > > Now Fred Mc G., please tell me again all about how the big, nasty, dirty, capitalistic money
        > > > grubbing steel industry decided to make every last penny it could on the old mills, and didn't
        > > > even want to modernize.
        > >
        > > Never did I say that the greedy bastards were big, nasty, dirty, or
        > > capitalistic. Most of them were hard working money grubbers, like you
        > > and I. Probably slightly more republicans than democrats, but when it
        > > comes to money, our own anyway, there is really little difference. In
        > > any case, what does the pejoritive description of their nature and
        > > motivation, and the political forces hurled aginst them, have to do with
        > > the question of whether or not they got where they got by very bad, in
        > > the long run, buisness decisions?
        >
        > See above. They got where they are today by the Marvelous Success of the Still Very Much Alive
        > Marshall Plan.
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > > I recall that a small, very small number of us at work were really LIVID about Kennedy's
        > > > action on this, on the very day he was murdered. (By a large margin, most IBMers were
        > > > democrats.
        > >
        > > I recall that Kennedy was vilified as a rich man, a young man, a
        > > catholic, and most horribly, as a democrat, whatever that is. As a
        > > democrat, his positions were a lot more conservative than most
        > > republicans today, as I see it, rabid right excepted. The process of
        > > jawboning the big industries to keep inflation down, which sounds like
        > > the more polite and less accusative description of what you attributed
        > > to his actions, may very well have been essential to establishing our
        > > modern low inflation rate and relative buisness boom. Frankly, while he
        > > was trying to do the job that we needed doing, I think he was often
        > > misdirected. So, unfortunatly, were many of his opponents. You say you
        > > were LIVID? What did you think about our 18% a year inflation rates? Did
        > > that livid you at all? Perhaps working with all the educated folk at IBM
        > > who just happened to give up their good solid republican roots for those
        > > dangerously new democratic ideas gave you less problems than the rapidly
        > > increasing cost of food for the very poor with fixed and very low
        > > incomes? Please Jim. If you want to argue that steel was crushed by
        > > foreign competition, to the tune of 10-100 billion dollors worth of
        > > subsidization of the major steel consumers, still mostly US I think, you
        > > have to make the case that our steel industry did in fact do the right
        > > thing. With the horendous inflation rate we supported then, we may have
        > > stolen their opertunity to upgrade and compete. Is the recent fall of
        > > Japan a result of finally having to pay the piper? Nobody gets off scott
        > > free.
        >
        > Yes, I recall the terrible double digit inflation rates (occurring during the watch of Peanut Man,
        > the Atomic Scientist), and that a silly old hollywood western actor name Reagan solved them for us.
        >
        > "subsidization of major steel consumers..." Don't understand this point. IF U.S. companies were
        > subsidized by the govt., they still bought the Japanese steel, and at prices which drove our steel
        > mills bankrupt. I do believe it was proved in court by the U.S. steel makers that Japan did indeed
        > dump steel on us at below production cost.
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > You seem to have a lot of carefully laid positions to determine who is
        > > responsible. I think these are all silly political retoric and have no
        > > real substance. But that is only my humble opinion. I lived through that
        > > period and remember most strongly how I was lied to by every political
        > > organization, and the lies have been changing over the years to match
        > > what they want us to believe now. My days as a party line follower are
        > > long over. Sorry.
        >
        > Silly political rhetoric? No substance? Only because you say they have no substance. When the
        > president forces a steel price rollback, which you neither acknowledge nor deny, now at least Fred,
        > determine whether or not this is 'of substance'. I can say the same thing about your positions, but
        > seems each of us believes he has more substance and less silliness than the other. This is why I am
        > not much interested in, or driven by, politics. FACTS HAVE NO BUSINESS IN POLITICS!!!! Neither
        > side need admit facts.
        > BTW, the steel price rollback was obviously before Kennedy's death in 1963. The 18% inflation you
        > mention came about some 10 years later.
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
        > >
        > > Enter ONElist�s WEEKLY DRAWING for $100!
        > > http://www.onelist.com
        > > By joining the FRIENDS & FAMILY PROGRAM. See homepage for details.
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
        >
        > Why do TEENAGERS get WISDOM teeth?
        > What kind of TREES have square ROOTS?
        > The DR. has answers:<a href=" http://www.drscience.com/s ">Click</a>
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.