Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Randy Wuller wrote: This post prompted a reply from Maryugo. Since MY is banned here and at the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to post. Yourself or MY can put it online and post the link here. There appears to be a misconception though. My message wasn't intended as an attack needing defense. I probably wasn't clear enough, but it was supposed to be: AHA, you're a Skeptic! Does 'MY' self-identify as a woo-woo? As a Believer, crackpot, fringe- follower, Fortean, Paranormalist, etc.? No?After all, Vortex-L is a woo-woo forum: Believers only, Skeptics very decidely NOT welcome here. However I don't ban the Debunkers outright, and only remove them if they become noisy enough to draw complaints, to turn the user base against them, or even to cause people to start unsubscribing. Besides being contrary to the purpose of the forum, Believer-Skeptic battles here are guaranteed to be endless almost by definition, since they'd only ever halt if the Skeptic decides to renounce their own identity and come over to join us in the enemy camp. Discussions on vort critical of claims are fine if they're taking place between fellow crackpots. :) The text for Rule 2 has the link which explains in more detail: MORE AT http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.txt (please read.) Here it is below, with a few more lines added to clarify... (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ beaty, chem washington edu Research Engineer billb, amasci com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700 http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html To put it bluntly, Vortex-L is a forum for true believers. People of the CSICOP Skeptic or scoffer/debunker persuasion are tolerated but not welcomed. For yet another definition of the two types of people, see the excellent article in SKEPTIC, V5 #2, Skepticism and Credulity: finding the balance between Type I and Type II errors by B. Wisdom. The article discusses the philosophy behind two types of mental attitude: 1. 'Scoffers:' those who, in order to reject all falsehoods, don't mind accidentally rejecting truths. 2. 'Believers:' those who, in order to accept all truths, don't mind accidentally accepting falsehoods. A few rare individuals fall between these two descriptions. However, there is significant polarization as well: whose who are solidly in the either the Skeptic or the Woo-woo camp greatly outnumber those who succeed in remaining between the two. I have observed that each highly-polarized camp holds their opponents in contemptuous disrespect bordering on outright hatred. The Scoffers regard the opposite camp as dangerously gullible true believers who'd allow Science to be damaged by irrational beliefs in such things as UFOs, psi phenomena, Free Energy, etc. And the Believers regard the other side as dangerously closeminded pathological skeptics who stifle curiousity, block free investigations, and preserve science from the crazy time- wasting projects of folks like Galileo, Goddard, the Wrights, Margulis, etc. One side worships at the altar of Khun's Normal Science, while the other kneels before the holy Khunian Revolution shrine. A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly becoming a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real were constantly attacked by those who believe we must reject cold fusion because there is little evidence for it. And vice versa. Particularly shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See a href=http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html;http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html/a) I started this group as an openminded quiet harbor for interested parties to discuss the Griggs Rotor away from the believer-skeptic uproar on sci.physics.fusion. It quickly mutated into a believers forum for discussion of cold fusion and other anomalous physics. I created Rule #2 to prevent this list from becoming another battleground like the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup. Be warned: if you self-identify as non-Believer anti-woo, then you could be removed from the forum at any time. Vortex-L is intended to be a discussion area for researchers who have little patience with Kuhnian Normal Science, who practice extreme openmindedness, and who will accept falsehoods in order to avoid rejecting truths. I believe that many scientists reject new ideas because they unknowingly maintain an illusory worldview which is based on concensus of
[Vo]:Feasibility of LENR Hybrid Car, soon
Hi, someone cited this micro turbine of 5kW for an Hybrid Car http://www.enginer.us/products/steam_micro_turbine.php this car lost a competition because consuming too much fuel, but with LENR it should be OK... I dod not know that one could make a 5kW (mechanic I assume) turbine that works well... maybe the temperature of an hyperion (415 or 650C) is not enough for that turbine ? maybe the reliability is not enough for transportation ? at least the 5kW turbine could be used for CHP, and alike on fixed devices... what is your opinion.
[Vo]:ET - Call home
Best candidate yet for locating the home of ET is called GJ 667Cc, probably a mild tropical water world, where a month is a year and it is never dark. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=habitable-planet-gj-667cc That name GJ 667Cc: what a PR disaster. Let's rename it! A'dune? (anti-Dune) actually Dune was formerly a wet planet IIRC... It is 4.5 times as massive as Earth and takes roughly 28 days to make one orbit around its parent star, which is located a mere 22 light-years away from Earth, in the constellation Scorpius (the Scorpion). Interestingly enough, the host star is a member of a triple-star system and is a dwarf star about a third of the mass of the sun so it is probably very reddish. This is basically our next-door neighbor... It's very nearby. There are only about 100 stars closer to us than this one. So there are no seasons, no real night, lots of gravity. It is probably watery, mild temps, no arctic no UV light mostly IR. What do you expect from advanced likeforms?? 1) Small, due to higher gravity 2) Hairless due to mild temps 3) Reptilian water-proof skin with no UV protection 4) Small lungs due to high pressure 5) Possibly webbed appendages due to swamp-like evolution Yep, we've seen 'em here on earth in myth, since the beginning of time, but hey that only means the meme arrived here long ago, and not necessary the physical ET. But that is a minor detail to the true believer... Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
Bill: Don't know if you're aware, but MY's true identity has been determined... It started with a discovery by Robert Leguillon in this post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62551.html And Terry added some additional thoughts in subsequent posts... The discourse has returned to the 'normal' rational, tech/sci-focused discussions which make this a unique forum... I tried several times to explain the uniqueness of the Collective to George, aka MaryYugo, but to no avail -- Thanks for performing the exorcism! Instead of people leaving due to 120+ postings a day, we now have comments like this: JoJo wrote: Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the embarrassing experimental advice coming. I have learned a lot from you and many other people here. Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining insight into replicating Rossi. And PeterB wrote: I have only been on Vortex a few months and I have gained much insight. There's a lot of smart people here with a wide range of views. I'm starting to learn to appreciate the criticisms more as well. It's good to be challenged -Mark
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Jones, Interesting SA article. I seem to recall scholar/archeologist Zecharia Sitchin speculating on the premise that the Sumerian civilization was influenced by an amphibian race of beings. Sitchin was a prolific author. He rote numerous scholarly books on his ET hypothesis. I haven't read any of them, so I dunno. I'm more inclined to think of the film The Abyss by James Cameron as a reasonable example of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced aquatic species who might chose to visit our world. Talk about the manipulation of water! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
I'm hoping for the endowed, cat-eyed blonde in this encounter: http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1932category=Environment T
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Well, he was busted when dictionaries of sumerian were made widely available, including online. It seems he overused creative translation. But, who knows... 2012/2/2 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Jones, Interesting SA article. I seem to recall scholar/archeologist Zecharia Sitchin speculating on the premise that the Sumerian civilization was influenced by an amphibian race of beings. Sitchin was a prolific author. He rote numerous scholarly books on his ET hypothesis. I haven't read any of them, so I dunno. I'm more inclined to think of the film The Abyss by James Cameron as a reasonable example of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced aquatic species who might chose to visit our world. Talk about the manipulation of water! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Daniel sez: Well, he [Sitchi] was busted when dictionaries of sumerian were made widely available, including online. It seems he overused creative translation. But, who knows... It's all a matter of interpretation, isn't it! ;-) You say to-may-toe, I say to-mau-toe. Too bad we can't ask the Sumerians. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Huh? Have you read some of his books? MJ On 02-Feb-12 15:16, Daniel Rocha wrote: Well, he was busted when dictionaries of sumerian were made widely available, including online. It seems he overused creative translation. But, who knows... 2012/2/2 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Jones, Interesting SA article. I seem to recall scholar/archeologist Zecharia Sitchin speculating on the premise that the Sumerian civilization was influenced by an amphibian race of beings. Sitchin was a prolific author. He rote numerous scholarly books on his ET hypothesis. I haven't read any of them, so I dunno. I'm more inclined to think of the film The Abyss by James Cameron as a reasonable example of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced aquatic species who might chose to visit our world. Talk about the manipulation of water! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com http://www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Daniel: Without getting an explanation from the source, i.e., a Sumerian scribe, how do we know FOR SURE what the PROPER meanings should be in those 'dictionaries'??? The meanings that ended up there are LIKELY influenced by what the current thinking is on cosmology and other scientific fields of study. -Mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home Well, he was busted when dictionaries of sumerian were made widely available, including online. It seems he overused creative translation. But, who knows... 2012/2/2 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Jones, Interesting SA article. I seem to recall scholar/archeologist Zecharia Sitchin speculating on the premise that the Sumerian civilization was influenced by an amphibian race of beings. Sitchin was a prolific author. He rote numerous scholarly books on his ET hypothesis. I haven't read any of them, so I dunno. I'm more inclined to think of the film The Abyss by James Cameron as a reasonable example of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced aquatic species who might chose to visit our world. Talk about the manipulation of water! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:The roots of global warming science
The solar heat possesses... the power of crossing an atmosphere; but, when the heat is absorbed by the planet, it is so changed in quality that the rays emanating from the planet cannot get with the same freedom back into space. Thus, the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet. -John Tyndall, 1859 http://www.manhattanrarebooks-science.com/tyndall.htm Harry
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
I read one of them, when I was a teen. I had a lot of fun with it, but I didn't believe in one line. I asked or pleaded my mom to buy another but she thought it was to ridiculous. One was enough. 2012/2/2 MJ feli...@gmail.com Huh? Have you read some of his books? MJ On 02-Feb-12 15:16, Daniel Rocha wrote: Well, he was busted when dictionaries of sumerian were made widely available, including online. It seems he overused creative translation. But, who knows... 2012/2/2 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Jones, Interesting SA article. I seem to recall scholar/archeologist Zecharia Sitchin speculating on the premise that the Sumerian civilization was influenced by an amphibian race of beings. Sitchin was a prolific author. He rote numerous scholarly books on his ET hypothesis. I haven't read any of them, so I dunno. I'm more inclined to think of the film The Abyss by James Cameron as a reasonable example of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced aquatic species who might chose to visit our world. Talk about the manipulation of water! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
What's your point? 2012/2/2 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Daniel: Without getting an explanation from the source, i.e., a Sumerian scribe, how do we know FOR SURE what the PROPER meanings should be in those ‘dictionaries’??? The meanings that ended up there are LIKELY influenced by what the current thinking is on cosmology and other scientific fields of study… -Mark ** ** *From:* Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:16 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home ** ** Well, he was busted when dictionaries of sumerian were made widely available, including online. It seems he overused creative translation. But, who knows... 2012/2/2 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Jones, Interesting SA article. I seem to recall scholar/archeologist Zecharia Sitchin speculating on the premise that the Sumerian civilization was influenced by an amphibian race of beings. Sitchin was a prolific author. He rote numerous scholarly books on his ET hypothesis. I haven't read any of them, so I dunno. I'm more inclined to think of the film The Abyss by James Cameron as a reasonable example of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced aquatic species who might chose to visit our world. Talk about the manipulation of water! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks ** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com ** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Steven, The most basic reason that I think Sitchin and other proponents of physical visitation by aliens (the ancient astronaut bogosity) are misguided, at least on the issue of tangibility is this. Logic dictates that any advanced civilization, if they exist at all, will not be encumbered by our (humanity's) numerous faults, ego-based deficiencies and animalistic desires. Brutal conquest is out of the question (except in a good SciFi movie) and thus, if they can transmit information in an intangible but directed way, why waste the expense and risk of *physical* space travel? There is nothing to be gained from a logical perspective by being there in person, as we may find out in our collective future, Newt notwithstanding. Especially not if you hold the less controversial view that so-called remote viewing is not only possible, but can be made robust using technology. Combine that with directed meme influence and this explains everything about UFOs and ETs. Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) is a hot topic these days, and I'm sure you know more about it than I do, but Puthoff could be correct on many issues we follow here, and this is yet another one. The precise logical argument is: when you can direct the information necessary to produce the kind of change you desire at lightspeed, but can only get a large and costly space vehicle up to a small fraction of lightspeed - then the changes you wanted to influence (at the ultimate destination, including some benign form of 'conquest') would already be in place long before any vehicle could arrive - so why send one? Even benign conquest is accomplished easier from within more so than from without. Isn't this kind of evolutionary displacement (in the sense of determining the next dominant species on Earth) exactly what computers and networks are doing to us anyway ? :) Hello, Matrix. Finally, from the economist - which option wins in terms of net cost? CRV plus directed memes, or a manufactured space craft? That is a no-brainer in terms of cost. There is little doubt that when advanced populations reach a certain level - everything breaks down to cost. And yes a modicum of proof could be found soon - that civilizations elsewhere are transmitting meme information directly to us, possibly to influence such things as computer development and the WWW. The proof could be found a special kind of data processor designed for one thing - ostensibly - but which will document the nature of remote information transfer directly. In effect, it will allow ET to call on a dedicated line. This could be it, but if not, it's a good metaphor since it deals with probability: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Lyric-Invents-New-Type-of-Processor-the-Proba bility-Chip-152489.shtml And moreover they have arguably being doing this kind of non-physical information transfer (which alters a probability field, mental or genetic) for thousands of years. That is about as far as I am willing to go in the debate about such things as UFO reality. Yes, they could be real - but real only in the mind of observers. Like all reality, in fact. My UFO=OM rant of the day ... J. Interesting SA article. I seem to recall scholar/archeologist Zecharia Sitchin speculating on the premise that the Sumerian civilization was influenced by an amphibian race of beings. Sitchin was a prolific author. He rote numerous scholarly books on his ET hypothesis. I haven't read any of them, so I dunno. I'm more inclined to think of the film The Abyss by James Cameron as a reasonable example of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced aquatic species who might chose to visit our world. Talk about the manipulation of water! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:NASA Roadmap
At 06:01 PM 2/1/2012, David Roberson wrote: They are expecting great things from fusion I see. Wonder what happened to the positive outlook that they expressed earlier? I think that the positive outlook is only two labs who seem to believe it, versus this report representing NASA as a whole. I haven't read the whole thing (the blurry foo is too hard to tolerate for more than a couple of pages) but I got the impression that all projects were voted on to get the ranking. We know that the Langley work is done through some black discretionary funds. I just hope this doesn't end up with a SWAPAR-like ban on ANY work. (Any news from them, by the way?)
Re: [Vo]:Magnet Motor Video..Hmmmmm????? 267,500 hits- goes Viral.
In the comment section one person suggested it is powered by compressed air. Harry On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L: I have a strong dislike for Magnet Motors VideosBUT...this one seems to have gone viral 267,500+ hits --with many many likes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLek_3Hpwusfeature=player_embedded Note: For Entertainment Purposes Only. Ron Kita...IS it a Fake?
Re: [Vo]:Ian Bryce's Agenda
At 07:23 AM 1/31/2012, Wolf Fischer wrote: Hi Vortex, as it seems, Ian Bryce got hold of the possiblities of the Internet and tries to spread his word... He makes appearances in some of the Ecat-News-Site's comment sections as well as, e.g., on the Defkalion forum. To be honest - i am a little bit surprised by the effort that he puts into of spreading his prove (or whatever you wanna call it). I am currently thinking about his motivation. 1. He is a philanthropist and wants to save people from wasting their money. 2. He is just what he claims to be: A skeptic and wants to spread the word... 3. He has some kind of hidden agenda...? Although I don't know what this might be... Perhaps he was mocked by some Ecat-fanboys...? ;) I've been in email correspondence with Bryce -- and I think I've got him to soften a couple of his claims -- eg his banner headline It *IS* a wiring fake vs It *COULD BE* a wiring fake. When they're clarified I'll add some of his stuff to my fakes document. He's also been doing his homework -- he's now looked at all the experiments and has been in touch with Mats Lewan. (eg He sent me a draft of a table of experiments -- which is now more reasonably vs pathologically skeptical.) I don't think he's ready for vortex membership, though. (See rule 2)
[Vo]:Rossi Daily News
February 1st, 2012 at 7:56 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580cpage=2#comment-178418 Dear Luca Salvarani, I beg you to rewrite also in English your question, so that our Readers, mainly Anglophone, will understand what we say. I can give answers which translate the sense of the questions if the comments are short, otherwise in this period it is very hard for me because I have really not time. We are preparing the manufacturing of the million E-Cats, with the very high burden that it generates, we have to manufacture the 1 MW plants, all in the USA, while I have to fly across the World to prepare the network for the sales please you translate, I answer, I promise. Well, while writing this I understand that I am disappointing you, so now I answer translating for you, but in future, please, if the comments are more than 3 lines be kind, translate them in English. Answers: 1- Yes, it will be possible to power the drives of the E-Cat in series, to increase the efficiency, of course when we will able to produce efficiently elecric energy. But I want to say you one thing: today we met a Partner in the USA who will allow a tremendous increase of efficiency of the system. The beautiful of this Country is that when you wake up in the morning you never know what will happen new during the day. 2- the improvement of COP will make sense only if it will not jeopardize the competitivity, you are right. Thank you very much for your kind attention, Warm Regards, A.R. - - - - - - - - Italo R. February 2nd, 2012 at 4:30 AM Dear Ing. Rossi only one question, thank you: When I change the charge every 6 months, the old one is inert (no radiations), I suppose, as you have written many times. The question is this: Are there inside that charge some kind of isotopes whose semilife is some hours after having pulling it out? Thank you. Italo R. Andrea Rossi February 2nd, 2012 at 8:59 AM Dear Italo R.: Absolutely not, because all the activity inside the E-Cat lasts in 20 minutes, and the shut down time is 1 hour. We have strong evidence of this made in thousands of measurements. This will be clearly understood when I will give open explication of the effect that is produced in the E-Cat. Every E-Cat will be supplied with 2 refill charges, one inside, one for spare: after 6 months the Customer will make easily the extraction of the used refill and put the new one, sending back to our local Agent the used refill; we will recycle it and give a new spare to the Customer, so that after the next 6 months he will repeat the operation. We are making inventions by the day on our E-Cat, and covering all by due patents. Meanwhile the factory with the robotized line is becoming a reality. We are making a big job, here in the USA. Warm Regards, A.R. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is nothing to be gained from a logical perspective by being there in person, as we may find out in our collective future, Newt notwithstanding. Especially not if you hold the less controversial view that so-called remote viewing is not only possible, but can be made robust using technology. Combine that with directed meme influence and this explains everything about UFOs and ETs. Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) is a hot topic these days, and I'm sure you know more about it than I do, but Puthoff could be correct on many issues we follow here, and this is yet another one. http://news.discovery.com/space/psychic-viewers-say-apollo-16-astronauts-found-alien-spaceship-120124.html PSYCHICS SAY APOLLO 16 ASTRONAUTS FOUND ALIEN SHIP excerpt (see hyperlinks at web site above): A group called Transception Incorporated http://www.txception.com/, self-described as an Austin, Texas based psychic RD operation, sent a letterhttp://beforeitsnews.com/story/1553/307/Apollo_16_Recommendation_for_Congressional_Space_Medal_of_Honor_Submitted_to_NASA_Administrator.html to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden that nominates the Apollo 16 crew for the Congressional Space Medal of Honor. But there are strings attached. This is a very transparent quid pro quo because the medal is being recommended for astronauts John Young and Charles Duke allegedly coming upon an extraterrestrial shipwreck on the surface of the moon during their third lunar surface excursion on April 23, 1972. A prerequisite for the award is that the crew is released from secrecy about what they *really saw* on the moon. A variety of shipwreck elements -- described as structures, people/aliens, biological technology, and their plight -- were reportedly seen through remote viewing by six experts at Transceptionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQNmMElAU5Q . end My UFO=OM rant of the day ... That means we get one every day, J? T (not an official MiB)
[Vo]:Alan, what is SWAPAR???
I don't know how to find this, not even in google Alan, what is SWAPAR Ban??? Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:06:53 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Roadmap At 06:01 PM 2/1/2012, David Roberson wrote: They are expecting great things from fusion I see. Wonder what happened to the positive outlook that they expressed earlier? I think that the positive outlook is only two labs who seem to believe it, versus this report representing NASA as a whole. I haven't read the whole thing (the blurry foo is too hard to tolerate for more than a couple of pages) but I got the impression that all projects were voted on to get the ranking. We know that the Langley work is done through some black discretionary funds. I just hope this doesn't end up with a SWAPAR-like ban on ANY work. (Any news from them, by the way?)
RE: [Vo]:ET - Call home
From: Terry Blanton A group called http://www.txception.com/ Transception Incorporated, self-described as an Austin, Texas based psychic RD operation, http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1553/307/Apollo_16_Recommendation_for_Congre ssional_Space_Medal_of_Honor_Submitted_to_NASA_Administrator.html sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden that nominates the Apollo 16 crew for the Congressional Space Medal of Honor. It appears that the psychic RD Operation is run by Jerry D. Harthcock and that Puthoff is not directly associated. Is that your impression? I would actually like to propose a project to them based on Ni-H. . yeah, yeah, I've been getting these vivid dream images from the direction of Scorpio - that purport to be a working device . :-) J.
RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Alan, what is SWAPAR???
SPAWAR? Navy lab work - Pam Mossier From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Alan, what is SWAPAR??? I don't know how to find this, not even in google Alan, what is SWAPAR Ban??? Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:06:53 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.commailto:a...@well.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Roadmap At 06:01 PM 2/1/2012, David Roberson wrote: They are expecting great things from fusion I see. Wonder what happened to the positive outlook that they expressed earlier? I think that the positive outlook is only two labs who seem to believe it, versus this report representing NASA as a whole. I haven't read the whole thing (the blurry foo is too hard to tolerate for more than a couple of pages) but I got the impression that all projects were voted on to get the ranking. We know that the Langley work is done through some black discretionary funds. I just hope this doesn't end up with a SWAPAR-like ban on ANY work. (Any news from them, by the way?)
RE: [Vo]:Alan, what is SWAPAR???
SWAPAR, like SAPWAR, is a misspelling of the acronym SPAWAR. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. They, like NASA, had been researching cold fusion/LENR. Under a small glare of media attention, their program was possibly cancelled. There is a wealth of information available by simply googling SPAWAR LENR Is was revelaed, and covered on Vortex, here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59243.html From: scott...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:09:43 -0800 Subject: [Vo]:Alan, what is SWAPAR??? I don't know how to find this, not even in google Alan, what is SWAPAR Ban??? Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:06:53 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Roadmap At 06:01 PM 2/1/2012, David Roberson wrote: They are expecting great things from fusion I see. Wonder what happened to the positive outlook that they expressed earlier? I think that the positive outlook is only two labs who seem to believe it, versus this report representing NASA as a whole. I haven't read the whole thing (the blurry foo is too hard to tolerate for more than a couple of pages) but I got the impression that all projects were voted on to get the ranking. We know that the Langley work is done through some black discretionary funds. I just hope this doesn't end up with a SWAPAR-like ban on ANY work. (Any news from them, by the way?)
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Jones, As a recovering dyslexic, it can be a challenge unpacking your memes, especially when you're transmitting at IPv6 and I'm still chugging along at IPv4. I seem to recall that we have had similar discussions on the so-called merits of aliens physically visiting our planet, versus a less-risky virtual way. First things first. I find little fault in your analysis, even if might disagree around the edges. You may recall about a year or two ago I posted several lengthy subject threads pertaining to my own personal assessment of what our society calls the abduction phenomenon or the Experiencer Paradigm. I recall quite a bit of discussion was generated amongst the Collective, and that was a good thing! The only reasons I can think of as to why aliens would need to visit us physically would be for physically tangible reason, like: * To extract natural resources... We still have plenty of coal, gas, and oil. Yeah, right! ;-) * To claim our planet as their own. You had fifty years to file a complaint with the hyper space hiway commission, so what are you complaining about! * Vacation. See the universe! Have you had your Tetanus, bird-flu, and small pox shots? * Perhaps a more realistic scenario might be the need to secure physical samples of our environment for scientific purposes. That would include genetic sampling. Newt needs to be probed and then neutered for the future welfare of the planet. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Alan, what is SWAPAR???
At 12:32 PM 2/2/2012, Roarty, Francis X wrote: SPAWAR? Navy lab work Pam Mossier Yup ... typo.
FW: [Vo]:ET - fly home?
Jones, Robotic spacecraft capable of visiting Goldilocks planets, as hard as it may be to believe, may prove possible. Star Scientific Ltd. Claims to be perfecting a technique to economically and constantly produce huge quantities of pions. Their website states: “Muons are the decayed products of pions, and are the catalysts in the fusion of two hydrogen isotopes, a process which releases copious amounts of energy. The beauty of the muon is that it acts very much like an electron whose job it is to bond atoms together into molecules. Since a muon is 207 times heavier than an electron, it bumps the electron out of the way and replaces it. Because the orbit of the heavier muon is much closer, it causes the atoms in the molecule to draw closer until the natural repelling force is overcome and a strong nuclear force brings the atoms together – causing them to fuse. This process kicks the muon out to do it all over again some 300 times. This fusion gives us energetic neutrons.” The late Dr. Robert Carroll, a mathematical physicist who worked with Aesop Institute for 12 years until his passing, filed a rejected patent application for Pion fusion in 1971. Using Pion fusion, a Pion (Antimatter) Drive, might allow spacecraft to carry us far beyond the solar system at amazing speeds. Einstein’s mechanics allows a Pion space drive to achieve speeds that will approach the speed of light. In contrast, Carrollian, non-relativistic, physics posits a superluminal Pion powered space drive may approach a speed of 20,000,000 times that of light. If he should be proven correct, Dr. Carroll’s lifetime pursuit of an alternative physics might open paths leading to technology for robotic exploration of Goldilocks planets. Until there is independent laboratory verification of both the Star claim - and some evidence Carroll was correct concerning a pion drive, skepticism is certainly warranted. Mark From: Jones Beene [jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:47 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:ET - Call home Steven, The most basic reason that I think Sitchin and other proponents of physical visitation by aliens (the ancient astronaut bogosity) are misguided, at least on the issue of tangibility is this. Logic dictates that any advanced civilization, if they exist at all, will not be encumbered by our (humanity's) numerous faults, ego-based deficiencies and animalistic desires. Brutal conquest is out of the question (except in a good SciFi movie) and thus, if they can transmit information in an intangible but directed way, why waste the expense and risk of *physical* space travel? There is nothing to be gained from a logical perspective by being there in person, as we may find out in our collective future, Newt notwithstanding. Especially not if you hold the less controversial view that so-called remote viewing is not only possible, but can be made robust using technology. Combine that with directed meme influence and this explains everything about UFOs and ETs. Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) is a hot topic these days, and I'm sure you know more about it than I do, but Puthoff could be correct on many issues we follow here, and this is yet another one. The precise logical argument is: when you can direct the information necessary to produce the kind of change you desire at lightspeed, but can only get a large and costly space vehicle up to a small fraction of lightspeed - then the changes you wanted to influence (at the ultimate destination, including some benign form of 'conquest') would already be in place long before any vehicle could arrive - so why send one? Even benign conquest is accomplished easier from within more so than from without. Isn't this kind of evolutionary displacement (in the sense of determining the next dominant species on Earth) exactly what computers and networks are doing to us anyway ? :) Hello, Matrix. Finally, from the economist - which option wins in terms of net cost? CRV plus directed memes, or a manufactured space craft? That is a no-brainer in terms of cost. There is little doubt that when advanced populations reach a certain level - everything breaks down to cost. And yes a modicum of proof could be found soon - that civilizations elsewhere are transmitting meme information directly to us, possibly to influence such things as computer development and the WWW. The proof could be found a special kind of data processor designed for one thing - ostensibly - but which will document the nature of remote information transfer directly. In effect, it will allow ET to call on a dedicated line. This could be it, but if not, it's a good metaphor since it deals with probability: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Lyric-Invents-New-Type-of-Processor-the-Probability-Chip-152489.shtml And moreover they have arguably being doing this kind of non-physical information transfer
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. openly demonstrated at MIT
An article at greenstyle.it seems to indicate that JET Energy's demonstration was not hydrogen-nickel, but deuterium+tritium=helium. Do we have any such confirmation? R.L. __ This is the article in question: original - http://www.greenstyle.it/fusione-fredda-successo-per-un-test-effettuato-al-mit-7376.html Google Translate - http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=focardisource=newssearchcd=9ved=0CEQQqQIwCAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenstyle.it%2Ffusione-fredda-successo-per-un-test-effettuato-al-mit-7376.htmlei=9_MqT8MY0eCCB7zkmOgPusg=AFQjCNHFEBScqiWTcc9pC0etv7MCYgm60g
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Daily News
Rossi watching can be fun. Ya just don't know what he is going to say next. Thanks for indulging us, Alan! Much appreciated. :-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:NASA Roadmap : MINUS 39 / 406 (max)
OK : I got the whole thing. There were specialist panels, public meetings etc, resulting in a priority high,medium,low -- where low means that NASA investment would have little impact on the field. (Ignoring the fact that a NASA endorsement could have a big impact on other funding). The details are in Appendix F -- particularly Figure F1. The rating scale is curious and nonlinear , eg steps 1/2/3/9 -- and in some cases is negative. eg -9/-3/-1/1 Overall benefit was 0/3 Fit to needs was OK, at 3/9 (three categories) Technical Risk was 1/9 Sequence was -9/1 Effort was -9/0 and then THOSE are re-weighted to a final ranking. Result : -39 (Max was 406 : Solar)
Re: FW: [Vo]:ET - fly home?
In reply to Mark Goldes's message of Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:32:52 -0500: Hi, [snip] Einsteins mechanics allows a Pion space drive to achieve speeds that will approach the speed of light. In contrast, Carrollian, non-relativistic, physics posits a superluminal Pion powered space drive may approach a speed of 20,000,000 times that of light. [snip] ...at that speed Alpha Centauri would only be 6 seconds away. We could go there in less time than it takes to walk into the next room. ;) (of course this doesn't take acceleration and deceleration into account). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. openly demonstrated at MIT
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=autotl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=www.greenstyle.it%2Ffusione-fredda-successo-per-un-test-effettuato-al-mit-7376.html From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. openly demonstrated at MIT Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:45:44 -0600 An article at greenstyle.it seems to indicate that JET Energy's demonstration was not hydrogen-nickel, but deuterium+tritium=helium. Do we have any such confirmation? R.L. __ This is the article in question: original - http://www.greenstyle.it/fusione-fredda-successo-per-un-test-effettuato-al-mit-7376.html Google Translate - http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=focardisource=newssearchcd=9ved=0CEQQqQIwCAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenstyle.it%2Ffusione-fredda-successo-per-un-test-effettuato-al-mit-7376.htmlei=9_MqT8MY0eCCB7zkmOgPusg=AFQjCNHFEBScqiWTcc9pC0etv7MCYgm60g
Re: [Vo]:NASA Roadmap
The remaining low-priority technology, fusion, was judged to provide no likely value to NASA in the next 20 to 30 years due to a very low probability of success during that timeframe. (That's all she wrote).
[Vo]:Magnetism, the killer and creator
*Magnetism, the killer and creator* ** If cold fusion is based on a superconductive like pairing of protons into a entangled condensate, insight can be drawn from thoughtful consideration of superconductor theory as in the following: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.4404.pdf *Can nothing be a superconductor and a superfluid?* ** A superconductor is a material that conducts electric current with no resistance. Superconductivity and magnetism are known to be antagonistic phenomena: superconductors expel weak external magnetic field (the Meissner effect) while a sufficiently strong magnetic field, in general, destroys superconductivity. In a seemingly contradictory statement, we show that a very strong magnetic field can turn an empty space into a superconductor. The external magnetic field required for this effect should be about 1016 Tesla (eB _ 1GeV2). In the thread “name that tune” vortex membership speculated about the principle under test at the DGT lab. I now believe that DGT was testing how a strong magnetic field can stop a run away temperature excusion(aka melt down). The test principle at DGT is to start a meltdown and then stop it by applying a strong magnetic field. Cold fusion (superconductive proton supercurrent fusion) like Superconductivity when juxtaposed with magnetism may well be an antagonistic phenomena. Furthermore, the radio frequency generator may dampen the Rossi reaction to avoid a over heat activated meltdown when the NiH reactor runs in self sustain mode. In a seeming contradiction drawn from reference article, it may be possible to use a very strong magnetic field to amplify and control the cold fusion process. * *
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:48:44 -0800: Hi, [snip] Best candidate yet for locating the home of ET is called GJ 667Cc, probably a mild tropical water world, where a month is a year and it is never dark. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=habitable-planet-gj-667cc ...sounds like a (small) gas giant (based on the chemistry of the system), and that close to its star it may be tidally locked (like Mercury). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot -- BIG V
Engineer wrote: And I know you read the big V; so, did you figure it out before you read it? DefkalionGT: We respect big V and its role/commitment in CF/LENR for so many years.
Re: [Vo]:NASA Roadmap : MINUS 39 / 406 (max)
The weighting is explained in the document ... there is a final weighting of the individual scores. I'm not sure what a perfect score was -- 406 was the highest entry. The public meeting for Energy was TA03: Space Power and Energy Storage Systems March 24, 2011 California so it's essentially pre-Rossi. I didn't see any CF/LENR competence on the panels. Fusion included some HOT fusion technologies, so they're left in the cold (intentional pun), too. On THAT basis their ranking is probably reasonable.
Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:20:48 -0600: Hi, [snip] Daniel sez: Well, he [Sitchi] was busted when dictionaries of sumerian were made widely available, including online. It seems he overused creative translation. But, who knows... It's all a matter of interpretation, isn't it! ;-) You say to-may-toe, I say to-mau-toe. Too bad we can't ask the Sumerians. Maybe we can. After the nuking of Sumeria the remnant headed East. I suspect they became the ancient Chinese. (black headed ones ;). Also the ancient Chinese have a history of surprising technology, implying that they may have inherited a technological tradition/culture. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. openly demonstrated at MIT
looks like the scenario of the easiest hot fusion... maybe it is simply a journalist that invent whe he cannot fill the blanks... seen no data on the kind of LENR at MIT IAP 2012. CF times seems the only source. who have other non incestuous source? 2012/2/2 Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com An article at *greenstyle.it* seems to indicate that JET Energy's demonstration was not hydrogen-nickel, but deuterium+tritium=helium. Do we have any such confirmation?
Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot -- BIG V
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Engineer wrote: And I know you read the big V; so, did you figure it out before you read it? DefkalionGT: We respect big V and its role/commitment in CF/LENR for so many years. Yeah, that was the Arrg! Go on! reference to argon. And I really do have a FSM emblem on my car and celebrate Talk like a pirate day. :) T
Re: [Vo]:Magnet Motor Video..Hmmmmm????? 267,500 hits- goes Viral.
A couple of Free Energy prizes exist. How about a prize for an elegant fake FE machine? No batteries or ext. power source, that's no fun. For example, suppose you could build one of these youtube magnet motors which actually accelerated and ran by itself ...but its magnets became weaker and weaker. Design it intentionally that way. It would stop after ...minutes? Hours? (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:Alan, what is SPAWAR B A N ? ? ?
What is a SPAWAR BAN, and forbidding to work on something order. Is there any source where I could get more info? Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:36:57 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.com Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Alan, what is SWAPAR??? At 12:32 PM 2/2/2012, Roarty, Francis X wrote: SPAWAR? Navy lab work – Pam Mossier Yup ... typo.
RE: [Vo]:Alan, what is SPAWAR B A N ? ? ?
The thread subject was: Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research It was initiated by Jed in this posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59243.html Note that Jed misspelled SPAWAR (SAPWAR) in the opening sentence... With further comments here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59270.html You could also write Krivit and ask him. -Mark From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Alan, what is SPAWAR B A N ? ? ? What is a SPAWAR BAN, and forbidding to work on something order. Is there any source where I could get more info?
RE: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
Jones: You might want to follow this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture doesn't work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't work, Arrington explained. So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's really going on? I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not participate in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some relevance to the a.m.u. issue. For all the rookie Vortexians: My point in starting that thread was the following: And the experts dare say that fusion is IMPOSSIBLE under the conditions present in a CF cell? This can ONLY be said if one knows everything about nuclear interactions, and CLEARLY, they DON'T! A highly H or D-loaded metal lattice is not normal, and could be considered 'far from equilibrium', so how can anyone claim an unexpected phenomenon couldn't happen? The kind of science story which reports on an unexpected result is becoming more common now that we're able to discern things down to the nano-scale and pico-second... with all that we are able to accomplish, and build, and the accuracy to umpteen decimal places, it's easy to fall into the mindset that there isn't much to learn about atomic/nuclear physics. Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, or some variant. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1 Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called unit at the base of everything we know as stuff (matter) which is the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) is a lie. That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all these years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN knows exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so to speak. It is also a true lie since we now use an assigned value to define itself (by convention) but it is a lie nevertheless. We give it a value that is used to calibrate the instruments that detect it so it CANNOT vary by much. This is partly due to the inconvenient truth that the atomic mass unit is not exactly equivalent to an average between the mass of a proton (1.673 10-27 kg) and a neutron(1.675 10-27 kg). Essentially it is a variable within a close range, so that we overlook the problem of not having a true value. Plus most of the known universe is hydrogen, with no neutron - so one must ask - why should it be an average anyway? Plus (HUGE) when you start looking at raw data - the mass of proton is NOT always the value we suspect without recalibration - and in practice, the detectors of whatever variety - are essentially calibrated back to give what is suspected to be the known value. How convenient. Sometimes they are way-off without calibration. This all gets back to verisimilitude, as a philosophical matter, but it has a lot of practical meaning when we begin to dwell on hydrogen energy anomalies. That is because mass is convertible to energy, and the proton has such a large amount of potential energy, roughly a GeV, that it can provide thousands of times the energy of combustion, and still be hydrogen. IOW it has variable mass within a range and it is not a particular tight range, when the excess is multiplies by c2. This also relates to some of the mass of a proton being NOT quantized. Quarks are quantized but even their mass is at best a wild guess, insofar as far a firm values go and there is much more there than quarks anyway. More on that later, but write this off as another level of verisimilitude. BTW, the a.m.u. or atomic mass unit is actually smaller than the average of a proton and a neutron, in practice by 1% or so - since some mass is said to be involved in the binding energy of the nucleus. But hello ! ... even that is a lie, since if it were binding energy instead of force, then there would be a time delineated component and there isn't really. The proton does not decay (as best we can tell). More on this in later postings. My angle, as many vorticians are aware - is finding new kind of protonic nuclear reaction - one that does not involved very much radiation or transmutation. Working back from results in Ni-H as the defining question of our energy future - that forces one to reconsider nuclear and look at subnuclear. Verisimilitude is a bitch. Pardon my French (or is it Italian) on that one, and Vada a bordo, CAZZO! Rossi may be taking on water faster than Mitt changes major policies, but the Maru Ni-H is getting more buoyancy by the hour. And that
Re: [Vo]:Magnet Motor Video..Hmmmmm????? 267,500 hits- goes Viral.
If theory predicted that it should run for x hours but instead ran much longer would it qualify as a true FE device? Harry On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:29 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: A couple of Free Energy prizes exist. How about a prize for an elegant fake FE machine? No batteries or ext. power source, that's no fun. For example, suppose you could build one of these youtube magnet motors which actually accelerated and ran by itself ...but its magnets became weaker and weaker. Design it intentionally that way. It would stop after ...minutes? Hours? (( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. \openly\ demonstrated at MIT
Great news, and quite embarrassing for some. Ni-H could arguably to be different enough from the original 1989 experiment to convince the public that it's new. If JET is indeed demonstrating reliable 10x gains with palladium, the question of past suppression is difficult to ignore. What the field needs is an MIT press release. It would be a great way for MIT to rise above its difficult past. And, to be honest, it would lend great credulity to the claim. It's unlikely any mainstream news organizations will take the story seriously if the quoted source is a dedicated cold-fusion website. Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:00:39 -0500 From: r...@hush.com To: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. \openly\ demonstrated at MIT Hi Robert, I just got an update: the NANOR used in the present ongoing MIT Demonstration is a ZrO2-PdD CF/LANR solid state quantum electronic device. http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/successful-cold-fusionlanr-demonstration-at-mit-again/ (Sorry I didn't post this on Vortex. I get the digest, and can't reply to specific messages by getting the digest.) Yours, Ruby
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. \openly\ demonstrated at MIT
Dear Colleagues COP = 10, sounds quite fine however it's good to put this in context. PdD LENR has 3 problems: weakness (it's difficult to measure) reproducibility (bad, unpredictible) ephemerity (it fizzles out early) In this case- was it a strong effect Watts, tens of watts, can it be repeated and reproduced, how long it can last? The information is still scarce. Was it really a promising effect as say Mizuno's unquenchable great cathode or Energetics' cathode no 64? Lacunary information is not good, it's mental masochism. We need solid data to be happy. Peter On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Great news, and quite embarrassing for some. Ni-H could arguably to be different enough from the original 1989 experiment to convince the public that it's new. If JET is indeed demonstrating reliable 10x gains with palladium, the question of past suppression is difficult to ignore. What the field needs is an MIT press release. It would be a great way for MIT to rise above its difficult past. And, to be honest, it would lend great credulity to the claim. It's unlikely any mainstream news organizations will take the story seriously if the quoted source is a dedicated cold-fusion website. -- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:00:39 -0500 From: r...@hush.com To: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. \openly\ demonstrated at MIT Hi Robert, I just got an update: the NANOR used in the present ongoing MIT Demonstration is a ZrO2-PdD CF/LANR solid state quantum electronic device. http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/successful-cold-fusionlanr-demonstration-at-mit-again/ (Sorry I didn't post this on Vortex. I get the digest, and can't reply to specific messages by getting the digest.) Yours, Ruby -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
