Gold/Mining/EnergyBig Dog's Boom Boom Room

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Dennis Roth who wrote (157935)10/28/2011 5:22:48 PM
From: Dennis Roth
1 Recommendation   of 198409
Ukraine Seeks Energy Independence through Shale
by Jaime Kammerzell - Rigzone Staff
Friday, October 28, 2011

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (159078)10/28/2011 7:47:26 PM
From: Dennis Roth
   of 198409
*OT* Today's E-Cat Test results.

Andrea Rossi
October 28th, 2011 at 5:33 PM


The link gets you a 2.9 MB zip file
that unzips into 3 photographs of a lab report and a 2.6 mB Excel spread sheet with graph.

Until someone independently conducts a test, the claims are not proved, in my opinion.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (159091)10/28/2011 10:00:00 PM
From: Bearcatbob
7 Recommendations   of 198409
Use the ignore or awake the sleeping dog.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: CommanderCricket10/29/2011 10:09:42 AM
2 Recommendations   of 198409
Oil price direction
“Something structural has changed in current fundamentals” Posted by Izabella Kaminska on Oct 28 15:56.
John Kemp at Reuters has penned a cracking column on the current peculiarities afflicting the crude markets.

As Kemp notes, ask anyone in the market — specifically the physical market — and they will tell you the market is tight. Not just tight. Really tight. (And most likely that the recent backwardation reflects this tightness.)

He writes:

Hedge funds and other money managers remain convinced oil prices will rise. The ratio of money managers with long positions in WTI-linked futures and options to those running short positions remains 3:1, according to data released by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). For Brent futures and options, the long/short ratio is 1.77:1, according to Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), lower than earlier in the year but still bullish.

Physical traders are also bullish. “Bullish physical oil traders, who have been warning for months of a tightening market, have so far won the game against bearish macroeconomic hedge funds” as my colleague Javier Blas wrote in the Financial Times on Tuesday (“Swing in WTI price curve leaves oil traders reeling”, Oct 25).

Yet, despite all this bullishness, there is one inescapable fact. Prices have been trending lower:

That’s something that’s very hard to ignore, not least, as Kemp points out, because “sustained downtrends have been remarkably rare since the great upsurge in oil prices started in 2003?.

So what gives?

In Kemp’s opinion it could imply that some kind of structural shift is under way, one which is yet to be understood by the market at large.

As he notes:

It is not necessary to believe in either strong versions of the efficient markets hypothesis (EMH) or the forecasting power of technical analysis to perceive something structural has changed in current fundamentals or expectations about the future.

The downtrend started back in the late spring, long before there was an end in sight to the disruption of Libyan oil supplies, and also before the markets began to fully appreciate risks of a synchronised global slowdown.

Though he does offer some more conventional explanations tool:

The downtrend is probably due to a combination of factors: (a) expected resumption of Libyan oil exports; (b) cuts to projected global growth; (c) downward adjustments in forecast oil consumption; (d) liquidation of the record long positions in oil derivatives taken by money managers in late 2010 and early 2011; and (e) improved confidence in medium-term oil supplies as a result of tight oil and other technologies.

But if there is one indicator of “another” story to be told, we would say it’s this one:

The ratio of long to short position of managed money is still a very bullish 3:1 in light sweet crude, but it’s nowhere near the 10:1 ratio we saw in April/May just before the US debt ceiling debacle shenanigans began in earnest, and before QE came to a chortling end in July.

That peak in the ratio happens to in coincide with when the down trend in crude prices began.

Which is not surprising since it ties with a swift reduction in the length controlled by ‘managed-money’. If that length was the flip side to commercial shorts… and if their view didn’t change quite as quickly, it’s unsurprising that it translated to the choppy volatility we have seen since March and April. Physical wants to sell futures at a higher price than there is demand to supply futures, from managed money. That’s naturally either going to translate into a choppy ride lower on the flat price as futures converge with the physical (if the curve is to remain intact) or see the curve backwardate until the excess supply built up to support that managed money is flushed out.

As Kemp points out in comments here, by definition backwardation is a sign of tightness that is expected to be temporary. “If it was expected to persist, the curve would be in contango.”

The common shorthand that backwardation = tightness, contango = slack, is thus an oversimplification.

(We couldn’t agree more.)


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (159078)10/29/2011 10:20:16 AM
From: Dennis Roth
   of 198409
E-Cat Demo - eye witness accounts

Here's an account of one of the witnesses with photo's that
prove nothing other than he likes to take pictures of himself standing next to scientists
and equipment cabinets that could be anything.

1 MW E-Cat Cold Fusion Device Test Successful

Here another account from Radio Città del Capo with pictures.
The text is in Italian
28 ottobre, fusione fredda: il test della centrale da 1 Mw


What bothers me about the demonstration was that the witnesses were lead one or two at a
time back to the apparatus which was asserted to be in 'self-sustained mode' for a
2 to 3 minute glimpse at the machine. I don't think anyone can tell what an apparatus is
doing by just looking at it for 3 minutes. The mystery American investor who allegedly
was satisfied with the test was never identified.

I'm reminded of other scams that I could recount where investors/witnesses where
allowed to view a device that they didn't understand and couldn't possibly determine
if it was really performing as claimed by just looking at it.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (159100)10/29/2011 10:26:23 AM
From: CommanderCricket
2 Recommendations   of 198409
This reminds me of the hype when Geraldo wanted to open Al Capones safe.

Input = Nickel and Hydrogen

Output = Copper?

The Chinese will love it!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (159101)10/29/2011 11:08:14 AM
From: Dennis Roth
   of 198409
Some one named Jed Rothwell, whose name doesn't ring a bell with me, has expressed my concerns
better than I:

[Vo]:Dismaying rumors about October 28 test

Jed Rothwell Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:34:00 -0700

I have heard that observers of today’s tests are only being allowed to look at the equipment for a few minutes at a time, and they are not being introduced to the engineers who are taking the data. They are not being given a chance to establish the bona fides of these engineers, or to confirm that they are fully independent from Rossi.

If this is true then it goes without saying these results will have zero credibility.

If this is true then Rossi has once again taken a golden opportunity to convince the world his claims are true, and used it to make himself look like a crook.

I hope this is not true.

Whatever happens, I am sure we will get the full story. The reporters there can be relied upon to tell us the truth. If they are not allowed to interview the engineers and they cannot independently confirm the data, they will say so. I am sure Rossi knows they will tell the truth, so it seems unlikely he would impose such outrageous conditions. Unfortunately, he has often done outrageous things, such as telling people they are not allowed to measure the temperature with their own instruments.

- Jed

Test of Rossi’s 1 MW E-Cat fusion system apparently successful

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (159102)10/29/2011 11:39:59 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa
1 Recommendation   of 198409
"The reporters there can be relied upon to tell us the truth."
Is Jed really that naive?

Sadly, reporters rarely tell the truth any more. They tend to inflate, speculate and self-promote.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Salt'n'Peppa10/29/2011 11:46:18 AM
5 Recommendations   of 198409
Next week could be an ugly one.
Airline groundings are becoming contagious.

First Qantas grounds their entire fleet (and rightly so!) in response to multiple threats from blood-sucking unions.

Now Air France has joined in the fray for similar reasons.

This will have economic repercussions.
Where will it stop? Companies worldwide have already cut to the bone and are operating on an economic knife edge. They cannot afford to be held at ransom by self-serving and unyielding unions.
It will spread beyond airlines, guaranteed.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (159101)10/29/2011 12:11:15 PM
From: Dennis Roth
   of 198409
>> Input = Nickel and Hydrogen

Output = Copper?

The Chinese will love it! <<

In the long discussion following this article
this was pointed out about the copper claim:

John West says:
October 28, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Looking for resulting copper isotopes, I came upon:
which has some written in English:

“The detection of 10% of copper isotopes2 in the residue from the E-Cat is difficult
to understand, especially since only stable copper isotopes (63Cu and 65Cu) are
detected. The isotope ratios of the stable copper isotopes in the residue are the
same as that of natural copper. This is highly unlikely if the copper is produced by
fusion reactions as Rossi claims.”
“Considering that the natural abundance of 58Ni (68%), 62Ni (3.6%) and 64Ni
(0.9%), it is strange that no 59Cu is produced from the abundant 58Ni and that
only the two stable copper isotopes are produced. It seems that nature by magic
has given 62Ni and 64Ni special properties so that stable copper isotopes can be

Doesn’t look good for a nuclear reaction.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.