[Vo]:Who tested Cold Fusion and is opposing it ? in history ? today ?
Hi, In some discussion we discussed about the fact that majority of physicist deny LENR reality. It seems clear that 99% of opinion on LENR are just 3nd hand opinion, ie jus parroting what colleagues or media say. People like me have 2nd hand opinion, based on reading documents, and hearing 1st hand witness. Form the various population here I would like to knwo who are the opponents to LENR reality, who have 1- experienced personally, participated test, touched the devices is there more than a handful? Huizenga? maybe Joshuah Cude ? Jones (still?)? I remember one bashing Iwamura for Pr contamination... 2- seriously analysed the reports, papers, experiments (not SciAm AFAIK, not Nature/Science since APS ban) beside that, there are certainly self-ignited parrots, who are opinion leaders, yet they have only 3rd hand opinion, of not just prejudices... do you know the great one, which are followed by the mainstream parrots.
RE: [Vo]:LENT from super vibration proposed
Hi Ruby, I have been proposing a relativistic interpretation of casimir effect and all VanderWall based forces like Lamb Shift and spontaneous emissions.. that is to say that a Puthoff based perspective of all physical matter balanced by vacuum wavelengths can be modified by quantum containment but IMHO these virtual particles are NOT just displaced as proposed by Casimir theory but rather they reshape the space-time ratio in the area of containment so that they locally perceive the spatial volume they need to exist in exchange for making the unit time smaller [ from our perspective the bigger particles can't fit in the contained area] - unlike dilation from near luminal velocity which makes the unit time larger. My interpretation of LENT is that the radioactive particles that are contained in the dynamic casimir geometries afforded by supervibration are experiencing time dilation dominated by the accelerated variety - I believe the opposite variety of time dilation is also present in the geometry where the quantum geometry pumps down the vacuum pressure in a shallow field over the external surface of the plates to concentrate it into the cavity. The before and after radiation measurements focus on the average so the accelerated decay in the contained areas will far outstrip the slight delays and be easier to detect. The geometry of the particles relative to the catalyst would bias these anomalous decay rates. My personal opinion is that catalytic action is based on this same anomaly. Fran From http://everything2.com/title/zero+point+energy by TheNonbornKinghttp://everything2.com/user/TheNonbornKing Thu Feb 05 2004 at 2:54:10 Zero point (insert physical term here) gets its name from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which dictates that an ideal harmonic oscillator -- one small enough to be subject to quantum laws -- can never be entirely at rest, since that would be a state of zero energy, which is forbiddenhttp://everything2.com/title/forbidden. Quantum electrodynamicshttp://everything2.com/title/Quantum+electrodynamics predicts that a true vacuumhttp://everything2.com/title/vacuum creates virtual particleshttp://everything2.com/title/virtual+particles and waves that pop in and out of existencehttp://everything2.com/title/existence, also known as vacuum fluctuationhttp://everything2.com/title/vacuum+fluctuation or zero point fluctuation. Their lifetime is strictly limited by the uncertainty principle. This roiling quantumhttp://everything2.com/title/quantum sea pervades all of the universehttp://everything2.com/title/universe, even the empty space within atomshttp://everything2.com/title/atom. Experimental evidence for the existence of zero point fluctuations are the Casimir Effecthttp://everything2.com/title/Casimir+Effect, the Lamb Shift, Van der Waals forces, diamagnetism, spontaneous emission, and microdegree liquid Helium. Zero Point Energy in and of itself has little or no meaning. However we can measure fluctuations in this infinite quantity when mass is introduced. In an article at the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html, they liken it to a boat floating on the ocean. The boat doesn't really care how deep the ocean is below it, just the changes that it can observe relative to it's position on the surface. Sonoluminescence may also tap the Zero Point Energy. Dr. Claudia Eberlein in her paper Sonoluminescence and QED (Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 3, 842, 10/96) describes her conclusion that only the Zero Point Energy spectrum matches the light emission spectrum of sonoluminescence, which therefore must be a Zero Point Energy phenomena. Philip Yam's article from Scientific American(12/97) continues the work of the late nobel prize winner Julian Schwinger and states, Basically the surface of the bubble is supposed to act as the Casimir force plates; as the bubble shrinks, it starts to exclude the bigger modes of the vacuum energy, which is converted to light. Barber and Putterman discovered that sonoluminescent flashes only exist for 50 picoseconds or shorter. Atomic processes, on the other hand, emit light for at least several tenths of a nanosecond which leads many to apreciate Eberlein's proposal that Zero Point Energy is the source of the radiation. From: Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:27 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:LENT from super vibration proposed An update from Toshiro Sengaku on proposals to remediate radioactive materials from Fukushima using LENT: http://coldfusionnow.org/lent-of-radioactive-materials-by-super-vibration/ -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.orgmailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.orghttp://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:LENR-Cars selected for Future Energy Ultra-Light-Startups challenge.... 3 days to vote...
Hi all, Maybe you remember of the battle to make Lenuco (George Miley) get nominated for a Future Energy Ultra Light Startups contest. We lose but we lose avec panache. LENR Cars have just been selected to compete in the in the Future Energy online pitching contest organized by Ultra Light Startups. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/1864 All enthusiast about LENR should think about voting, and calling their friends to support that start-up. LENR-Cars is a start-up focused on application of LENR for vehicles. Nicolas Chauvin have an interesting network (including the founder of Logitech, whom Nicolas worked for). He is an experienced serial innovator. Sure LENR-cars is not (yet?) a reactor builder like Rossi or Defkalion, but they are the symbol of an emerging class of LENR companies focused on applications. A generation of engineer trying to harness that new energy. Beyond LENR-cars start-up, by pushing this LENR application start-up, you will push LENR into the light, with hope to have media get interested. If any LENR start-up win the challenge I hope that it will be a media bomb, like what Elforsk Perspektiv should have been. Not sure we will win, but sure if we don't support LENR even more than last time, the observers may consider that LENR is a dead horse. We have to do better than last time. And if LENR-Cars miss their target, but with more votes than Miley, maybe next time Miley, LENR-cars, or another will win because of the generated momentum ! Probably you asked What can I do to make LENR go faster. You have the answer ! (published on http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-cars-to-compete-upon-vote-arpa-e/ ) Hope this helps
Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship
Dave, I've asked our question on phsyics.stackexchange.com -- here's what has come back so far: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/87047/6713 On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: As I have mentioned on occasions, I see plenty of evidence that both forms of relativity are strongly supported by the behavior of such machines as the LHC. See @dmckee's comment to Suzan Cioc's answer. One of the implications of SR is that each observer should experience his own local time and motions as being completely normal regardless of any relative motion with respect to other observers. I believe this only applies when no acceleration is involved. Once one of the parties steps on the gas pedal, you have a situation where symmetry is broken, and the considerations change. Eric
[Vo]:(X)od will be arriving soon
(X)od is the next big thing. (X)od goes beyond mere AI (artificial intelligence) into the holy world of Capitalism, where it is device-free, voice-and-thought controlled and totally ensconced in the cloud ... but as a must have service which is personalized to every customer. Needless to say it will be brought to you by our friends and neighbors at Google at a substantial monthly cost. (i.e. whatever the market will bear, starting about $250/mo with Glass, including mandatory training seminars). (X)od is all-knowing, non-physical and omnipresent and growing (learning) on its own as we speak at the rate of terabytes/day. You could call it a mashup of Siri, Cyc, Watson, Wiki, Deep Blue, expert systems from all fields, a personal secretary, physician and legal staff ... and most importantly, seamless integration into every end user's needs. Basically... the name (X)od is a word-play on X-on-demand where X is either the sum and totality of human knowledge and experience... or... you-know-who (X=G). (X)od is pronounced as zod. (X)od is the natural progression of ... well ... of natural selection. Those with (X)od on their side (that would be on their brow) will survive, multiply, and inherit the Earth, and the rest will be left to their own devices, so to speak. Not sure of the exact roll-out date, but (X)od was always the secret and hidden motivation behind Google Glass. In fact, Glass hardware has been available for some time but the delay in perfecting the natural voice recognition part of (X)od for the Red States has been the holdup :-) Jones CAVEAT For those who do not read vortex on a regular basis, the occasional spoof is not unexpected, nor is a real prediction made to look like a spoof. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:(X)od will be arriving soon
Charlie Sheen will have the upgraded (XXX)pod traveling companion :) On Tuesday, November 19, 2013, Jones Beene wrote: (X)od is the next big thing. (X)od goes beyond mere AI (artificial intelligence) into the holy world of Capitalism, where it is device-free, voice-and-thought controlled and totally ensconced in the cloud ... but as a must have service which is personalized to every customer. Needless to say it will be brought to you by our friends and neighbors at Google at a substantial monthly cost. (i.e. whatever the market will bear, starting about $250/mo with Glass, including mandatory training seminars). (X)od is all-knowing, non-physical and omnipresent and growing (learning) on its own as we speak at the rate of terabytes/day. You could call it a mashup of Siri, Cyc, Watson, Wiki, Deep Blue, expert systems from all fields, a personal secretary, physician and legal staff ... and most importantly, seamless integration into every end user's needs. Basically... the name (X)od is a word-play on X-on-demand where X is either the sum and totality of human knowledge and experience... or... you-know-who (X=G). (X)od is pronounced as zod. (X)od is the natural progression of ... well ... of natural selection. Those with (X)od on their side (that would be on their brow) will survive, multiply, and inherit the Earth, and the rest will be left to their own devices, so to speak. Not sure of the exact roll-out date, but (X)od was always the secret and hidden motivation behind Google Glass. In fact, Glass hardware has been available for some time but the delay in perfecting the natural voice recognition part of (X)od for the Red States has been the holdup :-) Jones CAVEAT For those who do not read vortex on a regular basis, the occasional spoof is not unexpected, nor is a real prediction made to look like a spoof.
Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship
I read the responses and find the answers to have varying degrees of relevance. So far we have not followed closely what an outside observer measures. At this point, I agree with SR and GR that other observers looking at the spaceship will see that it moves at a velocity that does not exceed c. But, the rocket man on board does not have to look outside to figure out how much he has accelerated. Unless his computer is defective, he smoothly reaches c and will exceed it as he maintains constant acceleration given enough time. The beginning of his trip can be experienced by anyone today that goes on board a normal rocket. There is no magic in that case. And, since velocity is relative, once he reaches say 10% of the speed of light according to his calculations, he can stop the engine. This can be repeated indefinitely into the future if he wishes and at no point would he consider his ship as being different except for having lost mass due to exhausting some to generate thrust. This operation is totally consistent with the rules of SR and GR as far as I can determine. The spaceman can even measure his ship's mass by using his accelerometer while monitoring the mass of the exhaust leaving his ship at a relative velocity of c. He will not see anything unusual about these calculations at any speed according to his local reference frame. The muon calculations support this situation quite well when we choose a viewpoint riding along with the particle. Again, other external observers moving at different velocities than us do not agree with our muon accessment. But, none of them agree with each other either so that is not surprising. :-) Recall the galactic red shift? Some of the far off observers would see our particle as moving slower than light or perhaps zero relative to their velocity. Many of these guys would think that the spaceship was moving away from them when it began its acceleration and after enough time actually come to rest according to their observations. Perhaps we should look at the rocket ship from other perspectives soon. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 19, 2013 10:09 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship Dave, I've asked our question on phsyics.stackexchange.com -- here's what has come back so far: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/87047/6713 On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: As I have mentioned on occasions, I see plenty of evidence that both forms of relativity are strongly supported by the behavior of such machines as the LHC. See @dmckee's comment to Suzan Cioc's answer. One of the implications of SR is that each observer should experience his own local time and motions as being completely normal regardless of any relative motion with respect to other observers. I believe this only applies when no acceleration is involved. Once one of the parties steps on the gas pedal, you have a situation where symmetry is broken, and the considerations change. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship
Dave,
To me it appears you are making two assumptions, which is OK but should be
qualified
1). Space is empty and not full of energetic particles/cosmic rays that
will penetrate and decay you and ruin your trip
2) Time actually exists and is not really just a rate of decay, ie on Earth
we all decay over 80 or so quantum orbits around the Sun, some of us faster
than others, depending upon vacuum density, which varies because we are not
in a smooth quantum vacuum field in space or on Earth.
Einstein said time was an illusion which I believe to be true.
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013, David Roberson wrote:
I read the responses and find the answers to have varying degrees of
relevance. So far we have not followed closely what an outside observer
measures. At this point, I agree with SR and GR that other observers
looking at the spaceship will see that it moves at a velocity that does not
exceed c.
But, the rocket man on board does not have to look outside to figure out
how much he has accelerated. Unless his computer is defective, he smoothly
reaches c and will exceed it as he maintains constant acceleration given
enough time. The beginning of his trip can be experienced by anyone today
that goes on board a normal rocket. There is no magic in that case. And,
since velocity is relative, once he reaches say 10% of the speed of light
according to his calculations, he can stop the engine. This can be
repeated indefinitely into the future if he wishes and at no point would he
consider his ship as being different except for having lost mass due to
exhausting some to generate thrust.
This operation is totally consistent with the rules of SR and GR as far
as I can determine. The spaceman can even measure his ship's mass by using
his accelerometer while monitoring the mass of the exhaust leaving his ship
at a relative velocity of c. He will not see anything unusual about these
calculations at any speed according to his local reference frame.
The muon calculations support this situation quite well when we choose a
viewpoint riding along with the particle. Again, other external observers
moving at different velocities than us do not agree with our muon
accessment. But, none of them agree with each other either so that is not
surprising. :-) Recall the galactic red shift? Some of the far off
observers would see our particle as moving slower than light or perhaps
zero relative to their velocity. Many of these guys would think that the
spaceship was moving away from them when it began its acceleration and
after enough time actually come to rest according to their observations.
Perhaps we should look at the rocket ship from other perspectives soon.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'eric.wal...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Tue, Nov 19, 2013 10:09 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship
Dave, I've asked our question on phsyics.stackexchange.com -- here's
what has come back so far:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/87047/6713
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:44 PM, David Roberson
dlrober...@aol.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dlrober...@aol.com');
wrote:
As I have mentioned on occasions, I see plenty of evidence that both
forms of relativity are strongly supported by the behavior of such machines
as the LHC.
See @dmckee's comment to Suzan Cioc's answer.
One of the implications of SR is that each observer should experience his
own local time and motions as being completely normal regardless of any
relative motion with respect to other observers.
I believe this only applies when no acceleration is involved. Once one
of the parties steps on the gas pedal, you have a situation where symmetry
is broken, and the considerations change.
Eric
Re: [Vo]:(X)od will be arriving soon
How exactly is this spoof? This is precisely what Smartphones / Google Glass are all about. Perhaps you skipped a few steps, but it's the end game. The merging of the human mind with the computational substrate. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: (X)od is the next big thing. (X)od goes beyond mere AI (artificial intelligence) into the holy world of Capitalism, where it is device-free, voice-and-thought controlled and totally ensconced in the cloud ... but as a must have service which is personalized to every customer. Needless to say it will be brought to you by our friends and neighbors at Google at a substantial monthly cost. (i.e. whatever the market will bear, starting about $250/mo with Glass, including mandatory training seminars). (X)od is all-knowing, non-physical and omnipresent and growing (learning) on its own as we speak at the rate of terabytes/day. You could call it a mashup of Siri, Cyc, Watson, Wiki, Deep Blue, expert systems from all fields, a personal secretary, physician and legal staff ... and most importantly, seamless integration into every end user's needs. Basically... the name (X)od is a word-play on X-on-demand where X is either the sum and totality of human knowledge and experience... or... you-know-who (X=G). (X)od is pronounced as zod. (X)od is the natural progression of ... well ... of natural selection. Those with (X)od on their side (that would be on their brow) will survive, multiply, and inherit the Earth, and the rest will be left to their own devices, so to speak. Not sure of the exact roll-out date, but (X)od was always the secret and hidden motivation behind Google Glass. In fact, Glass hardware has been available for some time but the delay in perfecting the natural voice recognition part of (X)od for the Red States has been the holdup :-) Jones CAVEAT For those who do not read vortex on a regular basis, the occasional spoof is not unexpected, nor is a real prediction made to look like a spoof.
[Vo]:Rossi Publishes His Theoretic Notes vis Focardi
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Math%20Lessons%20-%20Prof.Sergio%20Focardi.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Publishes His Theoretic Notes vis Focardi
This is likes a Schaum's outline math reference in Italian. I don't think there is anything useful here, but I could be proven wrong. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Math%20Lessons%20-%20Prof.Sergio%20Focardi.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Publishes His Theoretic Notes vis Focardi
This is very basic mathematics, in terms of what is required for physics or engineering course. 2013/11/19 Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com This is likes a Schaum's outline math reference in Italian. I don't think there is anything useful here, but I could be proven wrong. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Math%20Lessons%20-%20Prof.Sergio%20Focardi.pdf -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Publishes His Theoretic Notes vis Focardi
I'm getting a 403 Forbidden when I try to follow that link - can anyone send me a copy of the pdf? Thanks, Andy. On 19/11/13 20:10, Bob Higgins wrote: This is likes a Schaum's outline math reference in Italian. I don't think there is anything useful here, but I could be proven wrong. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Math%20Lessons%20-%20Prof.Sergio%20Focardi.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Publishes His Theoretic Notes vis Focardi
Perhaps hot-linking is not allowed on the server.. Or it was changed to a zip file. Go to this page, and click the download link button. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=821 - Brad On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Andy Findlay andy_find...@orange.net wrote: I'm getting a 403 Forbidden when I try to follow that link - can anyone send me a copy of the pdf? Thanks, Andy. On 19/11/13 20:10, Bob Higgins wrote: This is likes a Schaum's outline math reference in Italian. I don't think there is anything useful here, but I could be proven wrong. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Math%20Lessons%20-%20Prof.Sergio%20Focardi.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Publishes His Theoretic Notes vis Focardi
Thanks to both Brad and Ian - I've got it. Andy. On 19/11/13 22:16, Brad Lowe wrote: Perhaps hot-linking is not allowed on the server.. Or it was changed to a zip file. Go to this page, and click the download link button. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=821 - Brad On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Andy Findlay andy_find...@orange.net wrote: I'm getting a 403 Forbidden when I try to follow that link - can anyone send me a copy of the pdf? Thanks, Andy. On 19/11/13 20:10, Bob Higgins wrote: This is likes a Schaum's outline math reference in Italian. I don't think there is anything useful here, but I could be proven wrong. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Math%20Lessons%20-%20Prof.Sergio%20Focardi.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Who tested Cold Fusion and is opposing it ? in history ? today ?
I do not know of any prominent, published skeptics who have observed positive experiments. Steve Jones did experiments, as you noted, but they did not work. Kamikande was a good example. Richard Garwin often attacks cold fusion in public, but when he visited SRI and saw a positive experiment, he agreed it was working in a report he wrote. Nate Hoffman measured helium and agreed it was real. He wrote a book in which he did not mention excess heat results and he claimed that the tritium comes from used CANDU reactor moderator water. He was egged on by people at EPRI who oppose cold fusion. The other prominent skeptics have never seen an experiment as far as I know. Most of them have not read any papers and they know nothing about the research. You can see that from their comments, and in the Wikipedia article. A few of them did read papers. Huizenga and Morrison read papers and attended conferences. Britz has read more papers than anyone other than Storms. There may be a few others, but I don't recall any names. There are not many people actively opposed to cold fusion. There is inchoate opposition in the general population and among scientists. - Jed
[Vo]:Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity is free today
Free Kindle book today on promotion at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-textfield-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22 Frank
Re: [Vo]:LENT from super vibration proposed
This is pretty much over my head, but I'm kinda following you... :-) I just hope a technology comes out of this research. There's alot o waste to clean up. On 11/19/13 4:41 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: My interpretation of LENT is that the radioactive particles that are contained in the dynamic casimir geometries afforded by supervibration are experiencing time dilation dominated by the accelerated variety -- I believe the opposite variety of time dilation is also present in the geometry where the quantum geometry pumps down the vacuum pressure in a shallow field over the external surface of the plates to concentrate it into the cavity. The before and after radiation measurements focus on the average so the accelerated decay in the contained areas will far outstrip the slight delays and be easier to detect. The geometry of the particles relative to the catalyst would bias these anomalous decay rates. My personal opinion is that catalytic action is based on this same anomaly. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Publishes His Theoretic Notes vis Focardi
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: This is likes a Schaum's outline math reference in Italian. I don't think there is anything useful here, but I could be proven wrong. It was a strange thing indeed to put up a link to that. The math is basic, and I suppose it is useful in the context of LENR in the same way that knowing how to use a computer is useful. Note that he did not mention the context, and we infer that it is LENR. Very enigmatic. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Who tested Cold Fusion and is opposing it ? in history ? today ?
It would seem that in the real science community, opposition is a bit of a paper tiger. Didn't Jones go out of his way to fight recent funding for experiments at MIT? On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not know of any prominent, published skeptics who have observed positive experiments. Steve Jones did experiments, as you noted, but they did not work. Kamikande was a good example. Richard Garwin often attacks cold fusion in public, but when he visited SRI and saw a positive experiment, he agreed it was working in a report he wrote. Nate Hoffman measured helium and agreed it was real. He wrote a book in which he did not mention excess heat results and he claimed that the tritium comes from used CANDU reactor moderator water. He was egged on by people at EPRI who oppose cold fusion. The other prominent skeptics have never seen an experiment as far as I know. Most of them have not read any papers and they know nothing about the research. You can see that from their comments, and in the Wikipedia article. A few of them did read papers. Huizenga and Morrison read papers and attended conferences. Britz has read more papers than anyone other than Storms. There may be a few others, but I don't recall any names. There are not many people actively opposed to cold fusion. There is inchoate opposition in the general population and among scientists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Publishes His Theoretic Notes vis Focardi
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Note that he did not mention the context, and we infer that it is LENR. Very enigmatic. ***Rossi recently posted that he's no longer CEO, he is CTO of the company. Some of his new responsibilities will be to publish papers. He probably isn't very good at that. He also probably procrastinated and just looked around for something to toss out, for now. But he will have the rest of his life and a few $billion in his pocket to get better at it.
[Vo]:Vote to put LENR Cars on Future Energy event
http://coldfusionnow.org/vote-for-lenr-cars-now/ Nicolas Chauvin definitely needs more votes! http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/1864 -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
