Tuesday, September 27, 2005
COLD FUSION TURNS UP THE HEAT-FACT OR FRICTION?
Myths and Facts of Cold Fusion / Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
From-
http://www.newenergytimes.com/PR/CFMythsFacts.htm
"Myths and Facts of Cold Fusion / Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" was presented on 26 August, 2005 to the International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems, in Brussels, Belgium as part of the paper, "How Can Cold Fusion Be Real, Considering It Was Disproved By Several Well-Respected Labs In 1989?"
Paper: http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Paper.pdfPresentation: http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Presentation.pdfAudio Recording: http://newenergytimes.com/Audio/2005KrivitS-ICENES-2005.mp3
Myth 1: Cold fusion is "not reproducible." An effect is reproducible if it happens “more often than not." (Richard Garwin, IBM )
Fact 1: In the early 1990s, the rate of reproducibility was very low. As of 2003, cold fusion shows 83% average reproducibility, with some reports of 100% reproducibility [26].
Myth 2: “Nobody in mainstream science” is researching cold fusion. Mainstream scientists are those "who work in universities.” (Frank Close, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)
Fact 2: Several dozen university scientists have been, or are researching cold fusion [27].
Myth 3 : Cold fusion is “impossible according to current nuclear theory.” (John Huizenga, Chair, 1989 Department of Energy Cold Fusion Panel)
Fact 3: That was true in 1989, but it no longer is [28].
Myth 4: "The claim that cold fusion is a nuclear process producing excess power without commensurate nuclear reaction products, is pathological science." (John Huizenga)
Fact 4: The pathology ended when proportional amounts of reaction products were discovered in the early 1990s, which demonstrated conformance with the first law of thermodynamics [29].
Myth 5: Cold fusion is false because there are no significant neutrons. “There is no reason to think that the branching ratios would be different for cold fusion” than with hot fusion. (John Huizenga)
Fact 5: Cold fusion is not a colder form of hot fusion. The assumption that cold fusion should follow hot fusion branching ratios is erroneous [30].
Myth 6: No “hard evidence” supports the claims of cold fusion. (Frank Close)
Fact 6: Evidence exists for 4He, 3He, tritium, transmutation and charged particles [31].
Myth 7: Only a “dwindling band of true believers” studies cold fusion. (Robert Park, American Physics Society)
Fact 7: ~200 researchers in 13 countries are actively researching cold fusion [32].
Myth 8: Calorimetry is unreliable.
Fact 8: Many calorimeters applied to cold fusion are accurate to ±50 mW. Energy in excess of 1000 mW is frequently measured [33]. Calorimetry has been a common and trusted tool for electrochemists for over 200 years.
Myth 9: “The fact of the matter is Pons & Fleischmann's experiment never did demonstrate any excess heat. ... It was nothing more than experimental error.” (Lee Hansen, Brigham Young University) Another related myth is that all of the claims of excess heat from the last 16 years of research are all the result of operator error.
Fact 9: Wilford Hansen, of Utah State University, in a report to the state of Utah, verified the excess heat claims of Fleischmann and Pons [10]. Hundreds of observations, using a variety of calorimeters, have been made. It is unlikely that they are all erroneous [34].
Myth 10 : Cold fusion “is a simple chemical reaction that has nothing to do with fusion." (Nathan Lewis, Caltech)
Fact 10: Energy generation starts too quickly to result from storage. No specific chemical explanation has been offered for the anomalous heat. The excess heat effect is too large to be of chemical origin. Infrared microscope/ thermographs measure nanoscale hot spots that are hotter than any known chemical heat source. [35].
Myth 11: Cold fusion papers have not been published in peer-reviewed journals.
Fact 11: More than 55 peer-reviewed journals have published cold fusion papers [36].
Myth 12: If cold fusion were “a real phenomenon it would have emerged and be on the way to exploitation.” (Richard Garwin)
Fact 12: Many scientific endeavors are valid but not yet commercially viable including thermonuclear fusion energy [37].
Myth 13: Fleischmann and Pons were incompetent. "Just by looking at these guys on television, it was obvious that they were incompetent fools,” (William Happer, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, former head of the U.S. Dept. of Energy Office of Energy Research)
Fact 13: A refined image does not necessarily correlate with scientific competency [38]. Fleischmann and Pons were poorly prepared by the University of Utah administration for the press conference [39]. Being scientists, not performers, they were ill-prepared for the McNeil/Lehrer TV news show later that day, and their discomfort and unease was evident. They were asked silly questions such as "You did this in the kitchen, right?" by correspondent Charlene Hunter-Gault. Fleischmann was also very worried about other scientists' safety and was concerned that they might inadvertently replicate the "meltdown" experiment and cause fatalities as a result of the news interview.
Myth 14: Fleischmann and Pons were working "outside of their field of expertise." (John Huizenga)
Fact 14: Fleischmann and Pons were among the world's top electrochemists and were experts in their craft and pioneers in a significant new field of science [40].
Myth 15: Fleischmann and Pons "circumvented the normal peer review process." (John Huizenga)
Fact 15: Fleischmann and Pons did not announce their findings before the acceptance of their paper in a peer-reviewed journal [41].
Myth 16: No qualified scientists are convinced of the general phenomena of cold fusion.Fact 16: Dozens of qualified scientists in universities and government laboratories are convinced that the claims of excess heat and transmutation in "cold fusion" research are valid [42].
Myth 17: Fleischmann and Pons observed large quantities of excess heat quickly after turning on their cold fusion cell.
Fact 17: In the early years of cold fusion research, initiation time often took hundreds of hours.
Myth 18: The original cold fusion experiment was "ridiculously simple." ( Fleischmann and Pons)
Fact 18: Not true. It was, and still is, highly complex.
Myth 19: Cold fusion cannot be used for destructive purposes.
Fact: 19: Mankind always seems to find ways to use portable, high-density energy sources for destructive as well as constructive purposes.
Myth 20: Fleischmann and Pons were "incompetent and delusional." (Steven Koonin, Caltech)
Fact 20: The final chapter on cold fusion has not been written. It is yet to be known who was thinking clearly and who was not.
Myth 21: Cold fusion is a "fraud." (Ronald Parker, MIT)
Fact 21: Parker retracted his comment in a press release several days later.
Myth 22: Working cold fusion devices will be available soon. "Prototype cold fusion home heating units are widely expected to emerge this year or next." (Eugene Mallove, 1993)
Fact 22: 12 years later, the only unit to emerge is Dennis Cravens' (Eastern New Mexico University) experimental calorimeter and cold fusion cell which heats up his laboratory.
Myth 23: Cold fusion will provide an inexpensive, inexhaustible source of energy for the entire world.
Fact 23: This is only the hope. The future is unknown.
From-
http://www.newenergytimes.com/PR/CFMythsFacts.htm
"Myths and Facts of Cold Fusion / Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" was presented on 26 August, 2005 to the International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems, in Brussels, Belgium as part of the paper, "How Can Cold Fusion Be Real, Considering It Was Disproved By Several Well-Respected Labs In 1989?"
Paper: http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Paper.pdfPresentation: http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2005KrivitS-HowCanItBeReal-Presentation.pdfAudio Recording: http://newenergytimes.com/Audio/2005KrivitS-ICENES-2005.mp3
Myth 1: Cold fusion is "not reproducible." An effect is reproducible if it happens “more often than not." (Richard Garwin, IBM )
Fact 1: In the early 1990s, the rate of reproducibility was very low. As of 2003, cold fusion shows 83% average reproducibility, with some reports of 100% reproducibility [26].
Myth 2: “Nobody in mainstream science” is researching cold fusion. Mainstream scientists are those "who work in universities.” (Frank Close, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)
Fact 2: Several dozen university scientists have been, or are researching cold fusion [27].
Myth 3 : Cold fusion is “impossible according to current nuclear theory.” (John Huizenga, Chair, 1989 Department of Energy Cold Fusion Panel)
Fact 3: That was true in 1989, but it no longer is [28].
Myth 4: "The claim that cold fusion is a nuclear process producing excess power without commensurate nuclear reaction products, is pathological science." (John Huizenga)
Fact 4: The pathology ended when proportional amounts of reaction products were discovered in the early 1990s, which demonstrated conformance with the first law of thermodynamics [29].
Myth 5: Cold fusion is false because there are no significant neutrons. “There is no reason to think that the branching ratios would be different for cold fusion” than with hot fusion. (John Huizenga)
Fact 5: Cold fusion is not a colder form of hot fusion. The assumption that cold fusion should follow hot fusion branching ratios is erroneous [30].
Myth 6: No “hard evidence” supports the claims of cold fusion. (Frank Close)
Fact 6: Evidence exists for 4He, 3He, tritium, transmutation and charged particles [31].
Myth 7: Only a “dwindling band of true believers” studies cold fusion. (Robert Park, American Physics Society)
Fact 7: ~200 researchers in 13 countries are actively researching cold fusion [32].
Myth 8: Calorimetry is unreliable.
Fact 8: Many calorimeters applied to cold fusion are accurate to ±50 mW. Energy in excess of 1000 mW is frequently measured [33]. Calorimetry has been a common and trusted tool for electrochemists for over 200 years.
Myth 9: “The fact of the matter is Pons & Fleischmann's experiment never did demonstrate any excess heat. ... It was nothing more than experimental error.” (Lee Hansen, Brigham Young University) Another related myth is that all of the claims of excess heat from the last 16 years of research are all the result of operator error.
Fact 9: Wilford Hansen, of Utah State University, in a report to the state of Utah, verified the excess heat claims of Fleischmann and Pons [10]. Hundreds of observations, using a variety of calorimeters, have been made. It is unlikely that they are all erroneous [34].
Myth 10 : Cold fusion “is a simple chemical reaction that has nothing to do with fusion." (Nathan Lewis, Caltech)
Fact 10: Energy generation starts too quickly to result from storage. No specific chemical explanation has been offered for the anomalous heat. The excess heat effect is too large to be of chemical origin. Infrared microscope/ thermographs measure nanoscale hot spots that are hotter than any known chemical heat source. [35].
Myth 11: Cold fusion papers have not been published in peer-reviewed journals.
Fact 11: More than 55 peer-reviewed journals have published cold fusion papers [36].
Myth 12: If cold fusion were “a real phenomenon it would have emerged and be on the way to exploitation.” (Richard Garwin)
Fact 12: Many scientific endeavors are valid but not yet commercially viable including thermonuclear fusion energy [37].
Myth 13: Fleischmann and Pons were incompetent. "Just by looking at these guys on television, it was obvious that they were incompetent fools,” (William Happer, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, former head of the U.S. Dept. of Energy Office of Energy Research)
Fact 13: A refined image does not necessarily correlate with scientific competency [38]. Fleischmann and Pons were poorly prepared by the University of Utah administration for the press conference [39]. Being scientists, not performers, they were ill-prepared for the McNeil/Lehrer TV news show later that day, and their discomfort and unease was evident. They were asked silly questions such as "You did this in the kitchen, right?" by correspondent Charlene Hunter-Gault. Fleischmann was also very worried about other scientists' safety and was concerned that they might inadvertently replicate the "meltdown" experiment and cause fatalities as a result of the news interview.
Myth 14: Fleischmann and Pons were working "outside of their field of expertise." (John Huizenga)
Fact 14: Fleischmann and Pons were among the world's top electrochemists and were experts in their craft and pioneers in a significant new field of science [40].
Myth 15: Fleischmann and Pons "circumvented the normal peer review process." (John Huizenga)
Fact 15: Fleischmann and Pons did not announce their findings before the acceptance of their paper in a peer-reviewed journal [41].
Myth 16: No qualified scientists are convinced of the general phenomena of cold fusion.Fact 16: Dozens of qualified scientists in universities and government laboratories are convinced that the claims of excess heat and transmutation in "cold fusion" research are valid [42].
Myth 17: Fleischmann and Pons observed large quantities of excess heat quickly after turning on their cold fusion cell.
Fact 17: In the early years of cold fusion research, initiation time often took hundreds of hours.
Myth 18: The original cold fusion experiment was "ridiculously simple." ( Fleischmann and Pons)
Fact 18: Not true. It was, and still is, highly complex.
Myth 19: Cold fusion cannot be used for destructive purposes.
Fact: 19: Mankind always seems to find ways to use portable, high-density energy sources for destructive as well as constructive purposes.
Myth 20: Fleischmann and Pons were "incompetent and delusional." (Steven Koonin, Caltech)
Fact 20: The final chapter on cold fusion has not been written. It is yet to be known who was thinking clearly and who was not.
Myth 21: Cold fusion is a "fraud." (Ronald Parker, MIT)
Fact 21: Parker retracted his comment in a press release several days later.
Myth 22: Working cold fusion devices will be available soon. "Prototype cold fusion home heating units are widely expected to emerge this year or next." (Eugene Mallove, 1993)
Fact 22: 12 years later, the only unit to emerge is Dennis Cravens' (Eastern New Mexico University) experimental calorimeter and cold fusion cell which heats up his laboratory.
Myth 23: Cold fusion will provide an inexpensive, inexhaustible source of energy for the entire world.
Fact 23: This is only the hope. The future is unknown.
SLIMY REPUBLICANS AND THEIR OILY BENEFACTORS
Excerpt-US Senate Commerce Committee testimony by Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen's Energy Program
From- http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Oil_and_Gas/articles.cfm?ID=14181
Oil and gasoline prices were rising long before Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc. U.S. gasoline prices jumped 14% from July 25 to Aug. 22. Indeed, profits for U.S. oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, U.S.oil refiners made 22.8 cents for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil. By 2004, they were making 40.8 cents for every gallon of gasoline refined, a 79% jump.[3]
Faced with these facts, Congress and the White House instead recently passed energy legislation that does nothing to address any of the fundamental problems plaguing AmericaÂs energy policiesÂafter all, if it did, why are having this hearing today? As a whole, the Senate voted to approve HR 6, the Âcomprehensive energy bill, by a vote of 74 to 26[4], even though the only Âcomprehensive aspect of the legislation is the $6 billion in subsidies to big oil companies.[5] The only possible explanation for why Congress would bestow these subsidies on oil companies are the $52 million in campaign contributions by the oil industry, with 80% of that total going to Republicans.[6]
Remember, environmental regulations are not restricting oil drilling in the United States. An Interior Department study concludes that federal leasing restrictionsÂin the form of wilderness designations and other leasing restrictionsÂcompletely block drilling of only 15.5% of the oil in the five major U.S. production basins on 104 million acres stretching from Montana to New Mexico. While only 15.5% is totally off-limits, 57% of AmericaÂs oil reserves on federal land are fully available for drilling, with the remaining 27.5% featuring partial limitations on drilling.[7] This report contradicts industry claims that environmental laws are squelching production.
Congress can restore accountability to oil and gas markets and protect consumers by supporting Public CitizenÂs 5-point reform plan:
Implement a windfall profits tax or enact temporary price caps.
Launch an immediate investigation, including the use of subpoena, into uncompetitive practices by oil companies.
Reevaluate recent mergers, particularly in the refining sector.
Re-regulate energy trading exchanges to restore transparency.
Improve fuel economy standards to reduce demand.
From- http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Oil_and_Gas/articles.cfm?ID=14181
Oil and gasoline prices were rising long before Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc. U.S. gasoline prices jumped 14% from July 25 to Aug. 22. Indeed, profits for U.S. oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, U.S.oil refiners made 22.8 cents for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil. By 2004, they were making 40.8 cents for every gallon of gasoline refined, a 79% jump.[3]
Faced with these facts, Congress and the White House instead recently passed energy legislation that does nothing to address any of the fundamental problems plaguing AmericaÂs energy policiesÂafter all, if it did, why are having this hearing today? As a whole, the Senate voted to approve HR 6, the Âcomprehensive energy bill, by a vote of 74 to 26[4], even though the only Âcomprehensive aspect of the legislation is the $6 billion in subsidies to big oil companies.[5] The only possible explanation for why Congress would bestow these subsidies on oil companies are the $52 million in campaign contributions by the oil industry, with 80% of that total going to Republicans.[6]
Remember, environmental regulations are not restricting oil drilling in the United States. An Interior Department study concludes that federal leasing restrictionsÂin the form of wilderness designations and other leasing restrictionsÂcompletely block drilling of only 15.5% of the oil in the five major U.S. production basins on 104 million acres stretching from Montana to New Mexico. While only 15.5% is totally off-limits, 57% of AmericaÂs oil reserves on federal land are fully available for drilling, with the remaining 27.5% featuring partial limitations on drilling.[7] This report contradicts industry claims that environmental laws are squelching production.
Congress can restore accountability to oil and gas markets and protect consumers by supporting Public CitizenÂs 5-point reform plan:
Implement a windfall profits tax or enact temporary price caps.
Launch an immediate investigation, including the use of subpoena, into uncompetitive practices by oil companies.
Reevaluate recent mergers, particularly in the refining sector.
Re-regulate energy trading exchanges to restore transparency.
Improve fuel economy standards to reduce demand.
Friday, September 23, 2005
iPods and MP3's WIN over HD Radio!
Everyone is spending their money on cheaper iPods, XM or Sirius digital radio, MP3 players, rather then HD Radios so they DON'T have to listen to commercials. Ipods, and MP3 cell Phones will soon be wireless, via WI-fi, Wi-Max, or cell phone service.
Broadcasters are either incredibly stupid, or nuts! There is no public outcry for short, repetitive play lists, blabby DJ's, more commercials, or ignorant talk show hosts. The digital jamming of the analog airwaves will put a merciful quick end to AM and FM broadcasting. -Rich
4. HIGH-DEFINITION RADIOWHAT IT IS: Forget satellite. Regular radio is getting an upgrade, with CD-quality audio and many more channels.WHY IT'S HOT: Under pressure from satellite services like XM Radio (XM) and Sirius (SIRI), online music services, and iPod-type devices, the $20 billion-a-year radio industry has been steadily losing listeners' attention. HD radio is seen as the solution. The technology splices existing spectrum owned by station operators into thin bands. Each band supports a new radio station, so one FM or AM station can be divided into as many as eight channels to broadcast eight times the music, the talk, and (most important) the ads. And since they're digital, HD radio streams can easily be stored, giving listeners the option to pause and rewind live broadcasts, just as TiVo (TIVO) did for TV.
There are already 450 U.S. stations broadcasting HD radio. By 2007 that number should rise to 2,500 stations, covering 90 percent of the country. The biggest hurdle to mass adoption: Listeners will need to buy new radio sets to decode HD signals.KEY PLAYERS: Clear Channel Communications (CCU), Disney (DIS), Ford Motor (F), iBiquity Digital, Radiosophy, Texas Instruments (TXN), and Visteon.
From: http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,1107751,00.html
Broadcasters are either incredibly stupid, or nuts! There is no public outcry for short, repetitive play lists, blabby DJ's, more commercials, or ignorant talk show hosts. The digital jamming of the analog airwaves will put a merciful quick end to AM and FM broadcasting. -Rich
4. HIGH-DEFINITION RADIOWHAT IT IS: Forget satellite. Regular radio is getting an upgrade, with CD-quality audio and many more channels.WHY IT'S HOT: Under pressure from satellite services like XM Radio (XM) and Sirius (SIRI), online music services, and iPod-type devices, the $20 billion-a-year radio industry has been steadily losing listeners' attention. HD radio is seen as the solution. The technology splices existing spectrum owned by station operators into thin bands. Each band supports a new radio station, so one FM or AM station can be divided into as many as eight channels to broadcast eight times the music, the talk, and (most important) the ads. And since they're digital, HD radio streams can easily be stored, giving listeners the option to pause and rewind live broadcasts, just as TiVo (TIVO) did for TV.
There are already 450 U.S. stations broadcasting HD radio. By 2007 that number should rise to 2,500 stations, covering 90 percent of the country. The biggest hurdle to mass adoption: Listeners will need to buy new radio sets to decode HD signals.KEY PLAYERS: Clear Channel Communications (CCU), Disney (DIS), Ford Motor (F), iBiquity Digital, Radiosophy, Texas Instruments (TXN), and Visteon.
From: http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,1107751,00.html
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Built in car iPods gaining ground on HD Radio!
iPods winning the"Car Wars"?-Jabba the giant digital Hutcaster angry.
Quoted from: http://beradio.com/iboc_update/iboc_update_092105/#iboc
More Automakers to offer Ipods Buyers of Audi, Volkswagen and Honda cars will soon have an Apple on their option menu, according to the makers of the ubiquitous Ipod audio player. Speaking at a recent press event in San Francisco, Apple CEO Steve Jobs boasted that the company’s Ipod player will become available as a factory option in about 30 percent of all 2006 car models available to consumers in the United States. Audi, Volkswagen and Honda will join 15 other auto manufacturers already supporting the option.
In exchange for the added sticker price, new car buyers will enjoy the convenience of having their Ipods fully integrated with the car audio system, with access jacks mounted in a glove box or center console. Honda and its Acura division even plan to offer a text and speech interface to allow drivers to manage playlists while operating the vehicle. Jobs estimates that about five million cars will be sold with the Ipod option in the coming model year.
iPods produce no interference to present analog broadcasting. It's all about more choices, not less. -Rich
Quoted from: http://beradio.com/iboc_update/iboc_update_092105/#iboc
More Automakers to offer Ipods Buyers of Audi, Volkswagen and Honda cars will soon have an Apple on their option menu, according to the makers of the ubiquitous Ipod audio player. Speaking at a recent press event in San Francisco, Apple CEO Steve Jobs boasted that the company’s Ipod player will become available as a factory option in about 30 percent of all 2006 car models available to consumers in the United States. Audi, Volkswagen and Honda will join 15 other auto manufacturers already supporting the option.
In exchange for the added sticker price, new car buyers will enjoy the convenience of having their Ipods fully integrated with the car audio system, with access jacks mounted in a glove box or center console. Honda and its Acura division even plan to offer a text and speech interface to allow drivers to manage playlists while operating the vehicle. Jobs estimates that about five million cars will be sold with the Ipod option in the coming model year.
iPods produce no interference to present analog broadcasting. It's all about more choices, not less. -Rich
Built in car iPods gaining ground on HD Radio!
iPods winning the"Car Wars"?-Jabba the giant digital Hutcaster angry.
Quoted from: http://beradio.com/iboc_update/iboc_update_092105/#iboc
More Automakers to offer Ipods Buyers of Audi, Volkswagen and Honda cars will soon have an Apple on their option menu, according to the makers of the ubiquitous Ipod audio player. Speaking at a recent press event in San Francisco, Apple CEO Steve Jobs boasted that the company’s Ipod player will become available as a factory option in about 30 percent of all 2006 car models available to consumers in the United States. Audi, Volkswagen and Honda will join 15 other auto manufacturers already supporting the option.
In exchange for the added sticker price, new car buyers will enjoy the convenience of having their Ipods fully integrated with the car audio system, with access jacks mounted in a glove box or center console. Honda and its Acura division even plan to offer a text and speech interface to allow drivers to manage playlists while operating the vehicle. Jobs estimates that about five million cars will be sold with the Ipod option in the coming model year.
iPods produce no interference to present analog broadcasting. It's all about more choices, not less. -Rich
Quoted from: http://beradio.com/iboc_update/iboc_update_092105/#iboc
More Automakers to offer Ipods Buyers of Audi, Volkswagen and Honda cars will soon have an Apple on their option menu, according to the makers of the ubiquitous Ipod audio player. Speaking at a recent press event in San Francisco, Apple CEO Steve Jobs boasted that the company’s Ipod player will become available as a factory option in about 30 percent of all 2006 car models available to consumers in the United States. Audi, Volkswagen and Honda will join 15 other auto manufacturers already supporting the option.
In exchange for the added sticker price, new car buyers will enjoy the convenience of having their Ipods fully integrated with the car audio system, with access jacks mounted in a glove box or center console. Honda and its Acura division even plan to offer a text and speech interface to allow drivers to manage playlists while operating the vehicle. Jobs estimates that about five million cars will be sold with the Ipod option in the coming model year.
iPods produce no interference to present analog broadcasting. It's all about more choices, not less. -Rich
Built in car iPods gaining ground on HD Radio!
iPods winning the"Car Wars"?-Jabba the giant digital Hutcaster angry.
Quoted from: http://beradio.com/iboc_update/iboc_update_092105/#iboc
More Automakers to offer Ipods Buyers of Audi, Volkswagen and Honda cars will soon have an Apple on their option menu, according to the makers of the ubiquitous Ipod audio player. Speaking at a recent press event in San Francisco, Apple CEO Steve Jobs boasted that the company’s Ipod player will become available as a factory option in about 30 percent of all 2006 car models available to consumers in the United States. Audi, Volkswagen and Honda will join 15 other auto manufacturers already supporting the option.
In exchange for the added sticker price, new car buyers will enjoy the convenience of having their Ipods fully integrated with the car audio system, with access jacks mounted in a glove box or center console. Honda and its Acura division even plan to offer a text and speech interface to allow drivers to manage playlists while operating the vehicle. Jobs estimates that about five million cars will be sold with the Ipod option in the coming model year.
iPods produce no interference to present analog broadcasting. It's all about more choices, not less. -Rich
Quoted from: http://beradio.com/iboc_update/iboc_update_092105/#iboc
More Automakers to offer Ipods Buyers of Audi, Volkswagen and Honda cars will soon have an Apple on their option menu, according to the makers of the ubiquitous Ipod audio player. Speaking at a recent press event in San Francisco, Apple CEO Steve Jobs boasted that the company’s Ipod player will become available as a factory option in about 30 percent of all 2006 car models available to consumers in the United States. Audi, Volkswagen and Honda will join 15 other auto manufacturers already supporting the option.
In exchange for the added sticker price, new car buyers will enjoy the convenience of having their Ipods fully integrated with the car audio system, with access jacks mounted in a glove box or center console. Honda and its Acura division even plan to offer a text and speech interface to allow drivers to manage playlists while operating the vehicle. Jobs estimates that about five million cars will be sold with the Ipod option in the coming model year.
iPods produce no interference to present analog broadcasting. It's all about more choices, not less. -Rich
Friday, September 16, 2005
BUSH'S FCC JAMS INDEPENDENT VOICES, LIMITING FREE SPEECH.
The latest news from the cradle of liberty, Philadelphia, is that the FCC is allowing WDAS 1480 AM to digitally jam smaller suburban independent WBCB 1490 AM making WBCB almost unlistenable in it's 1.03 mV/m main coverage area.
I plan to post audio soon so you can hear this digital jamming noise for yourself.
Rich Franklin
I plan to post audio soon so you can hear this digital jamming noise for yourself.
Rich Franklin
Sunday, September 04, 2005
IS HD DIGITAL RADIO FATAL?
This amplifies the long trend of distracting motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, with transistor radios, Walkman, cell phones, high powered multi-channel car amplifiers, and now HD digital car radios with blinking full color displays and "BUY NOW" buttons.
Are iPods Killing the Scottish?
Will HD digital radio kill the Americans?
September 03, 2005
Scotsman.com, a site that features "Scottish news direct from Scotland", reports that "dozens of Scots road users are being injured or killed as a result of MP3 mania."
Traffic collision expert Mike Irwin said: "The potential here is for scores more accidents, particularly among cyclists and pedestrians. Drivers using their earphones will not hear vital traffic noise and warning signs, such as emergency sirens."
Researchers at the United States' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute have warned that digital distractions are becoming a menace on the roads.
The researchers found that 80% of the crashes and 65% of the near crashes were a result of driver distraction.
Source: Scotsman.com
Are iPods Killing the Scottish?
Will HD digital radio kill the Americans?
September 03, 2005
Scotsman.com, a site that features "Scottish news direct from Scotland", reports that "dozens of Scots road users are being injured or killed as a result of MP3 mania."
Traffic collision expert Mike Irwin said: "The potential here is for scores more accidents, particularly among cyclists and pedestrians. Drivers using their earphones will not hear vital traffic noise and warning signs, such as emergency sirens."
Researchers at the United States' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute have warned that digital distractions are becoming a menace on the roads.
The researchers found that 80% of the crashes and 65% of the near crashes were a result of driver distraction.
Source: Scotsman.com
Thursday, September 01, 2005
HD radio-JAMS AM AND FM STATIONS!
My republished reply to an article that appeared in Oct. 2004 issue of Radio World magazine.
Published in Radio World Nov. 2004
Oct. 31, 2004
Dear Radio World Editor,
The current IBOC iBiquity system does not meet FCC engineering standards for AM or FM broadcasting. It causes more interference to existing service then the small benefit it might provide to a few who will immediately trash all the old radios they have around the house and run out and buy expensive new IBOC radios for every room, car, and workplace. There have been successful High Definition digital broadcasting systems on the air for years, (DRM, Sirius, XM) and people who want them and have them are perfectly happy, so there is no need to destroy the current system of AM and FM. Better, perhaps digital, detectors in radios could provide much of the same benefit with no changes to the broadcasting system. The reason these haven't appeared is the reluctance of most consumers to pay high prices for replacement radios with what they perceive as little benefit. The slight increase in fidelity is not perceived as warranting the inconvenience and large expenditure.
Many AM directional antenna systems can not be easily, effectively, or cheaply be broad banded as required for proper digital IBOC.
The iBiquity claim that "It's all free for consumers," is a lie. The costs are: destruction of and interference with the current AM and FM broadcasting system, excessive cost, inconvenience, little benefit to the average user.
The slow digital TV sales and adoption by consumers is a strong message to the radio community. Radio is largely content driven. Put something on the air that people want to hear, and they will listen, as long as they can pick it up on their current radios. Most people don't listen to technology, they listen to content, and could care less about the delivery system except when it involves inconvenience and excessive expense.
Jeff Littlejohn's (Clear Channel) claim that what is wrong with analog AM is that the fidelity is too good and needs to be cut in half by a brick wall filter, reduces AM to near telephone quality audio.
Guy Wire's claims that those that are against IBOC are stuck in the past is untrue. Most advocate even more advanced all digital systems such as 5.1 and even 7.1 digital surround sound (not IBOC) that doesn't destroy any AM or FM coverage or abandon, inconvenience, or interfere with current listeners. Dolby 5.1 and 7.1 digital surround sound is already here and could be easily broadcast on channels that are all digital, not in the current band on top of AM and FM stations. He is right when he said 5.1 surround sound could be the "killer app." DRM, digital broadcasting which has been worldwide for years is currently being adapted to 5.1 and even 7.1 all digital surround sound, XM and Sirius are sure to follow. IBOC can hardly squeeze in 2 channel stereo, and even then causes noise, interference, reduced coverage and fidelity loss to current listeners.
The large broadcasting and recording trusts are terrified by their impending loss of control over what people can view and hear. They might not be able to monopolize digital delivery of all sound and video. They fear competition, restrict access by less powerful potential competition, while claiming to be for a free market. Unfortunately Teddy Roosevelt is no longer with us to protect our freedom and liberty.
Community broadcasting should be encouraged and provided a reasonable, inexpensive place in the AM, FM, digital, and TV bands.
Sometimes I find a simple, old fashioned, soldering iron will do the trick even though laser welding has been invented. Not everything needs to be laser welded. The availability of inexpensive, convenient, easy to use soldering irons without the bulky laser welding attachments, should be continued and not impeded.
Sincerely,
Richard Franklin
Super Sound Studios,
WNAR-AM
Published in Radio World Nov. 2004
Oct. 31, 2004
Dear Radio World Editor,
The current IBOC iBiquity system does not meet FCC engineering standards for AM or FM broadcasting. It causes more interference to existing service then the small benefit it might provide to a few who will immediately trash all the old radios they have around the house and run out and buy expensive new IBOC radios for every room, car, and workplace. There have been successful High Definition digital broadcasting systems on the air for years, (DRM, Sirius, XM) and people who want them and have them are perfectly happy, so there is no need to destroy the current system of AM and FM. Better, perhaps digital, detectors in radios could provide much of the same benefit with no changes to the broadcasting system. The reason these haven't appeared is the reluctance of most consumers to pay high prices for replacement radios with what they perceive as little benefit. The slight increase in fidelity is not perceived as warranting the inconvenience and large expenditure.
Many AM directional antenna systems can not be easily, effectively, or cheaply be broad banded as required for proper digital IBOC.
The iBiquity claim that "It's all free for consumers," is a lie. The costs are: destruction of and interference with the current AM and FM broadcasting system, excessive cost, inconvenience, little benefit to the average user.
The slow digital TV sales and adoption by consumers is a strong message to the radio community. Radio is largely content driven. Put something on the air that people want to hear, and they will listen, as long as they can pick it up on their current radios. Most people don't listen to technology, they listen to content, and could care less about the delivery system except when it involves inconvenience and excessive expense.
Jeff Littlejohn's (Clear Channel) claim that what is wrong with analog AM is that the fidelity is too good and needs to be cut in half by a brick wall filter, reduces AM to near telephone quality audio.
Guy Wire's claims that those that are against IBOC are stuck in the past is untrue. Most advocate even more advanced all digital systems such as 5.1 and even 7.1 digital surround sound (not IBOC) that doesn't destroy any AM or FM coverage or abandon, inconvenience, or interfere with current listeners. Dolby 5.1 and 7.1 digital surround sound is already here and could be easily broadcast on channels that are all digital, not in the current band on top of AM and FM stations. He is right when he said 5.1 surround sound could be the "killer app." DRM, digital broadcasting which has been worldwide for years is currently being adapted to 5.1 and even 7.1 all digital surround sound, XM and Sirius are sure to follow. IBOC can hardly squeeze in 2 channel stereo, and even then causes noise, interference, reduced coverage and fidelity loss to current listeners.
The large broadcasting and recording trusts are terrified by their impending loss of control over what people can view and hear. They might not be able to monopolize digital delivery of all sound and video. They fear competition, restrict access by less powerful potential competition, while claiming to be for a free market. Unfortunately Teddy Roosevelt is no longer with us to protect our freedom and liberty.
Community broadcasting should be encouraged and provided a reasonable, inexpensive place in the AM, FM, digital, and TV bands.
Sometimes I find a simple, old fashioned, soldering iron will do the trick even though laser welding has been invented. Not everything needs to be laser welded. The availability of inexpensive, convenient, easy to use soldering irons without the bulky laser welding attachments, should be continued and not impeded.
Sincerely,
Richard Franklin
Super Sound Studios,
WNAR-AM
