Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: If it can be commercialized, and it doesn't cause cancer within a 2 km radius or beckon forth giant sea monsters, Hah! Release the Kraken! http://elmisa.deviantart.com/art/Kraken-v2-424365880
RE: [Vo]:Off Topic
From Craig: I know this is off topic, but I thought it might be interesting to some of you. It's a unique Bitcoin transaction of which I had never considered. It demonstrates some of the power that Bitcoin may bring to people. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/277mpd/wanted_to_share_a_quick_story_of_my_recent_trip/ Interesting. Probably a little historic as well. I wonder what the exchange rate was between bitcoin and francs at that moment. Insurance wise, I'll bet the bitcoin payment was probably more than what one would have paid for the same drinks in francs. I assume the bartender didn't waste much time exchanging the coinage back to francs. My understanding of bitcoin value is that it is still highly volatile. Ridiculously so. I suspect the volatility issue will eventually stabilize to something of a more reasonable and predictable nature in the near future. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
One reason for the scientist, like for Elforsk boss, is not taking risk to be wrong but very probably they already know what they are (right or wrong), and that they did not take the opportunity to flee the debate is an information. If the test was a flop, the boss of Elforsk would have said : I did not call for that test, and we will see the result, and if money was wasted I will change internal policy. and he will thank the radio for the whistle blowing. And the testers would say : sorry I'm busy on another serious project, cannot say more., and you will see update on their Linked-in account. The main reason to support the: Test will be either positive or negative, but previous indication could not remove the possibility it works, so we investigated is to look neutral , not already convinced. Of course they have an opinion, a rational opinion, based on what they observed... Not having an opinion would be a lack of realism. But pretending to be neutral give their voice more credibility if the result is positive. For the skeptics who convinced the masses, the LENR supporters are not realist basing their opinion on facts, but a gang of believers who bend evidence to support their dream. Another reason of their formulation is that the show that NOT PURSUING INVESTIGATION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. It is an attack against the don't look into the telescope motto of the skeptical authorities, an absurd anti-scientific position. 2014-06-04 4:15 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: I don't know why they replied. Since (as Jed pointed out) they ran the test for the full duration it was most likely positive. The only reason I can think of is that the Swedish coverage might influence journal editors, but I think a solid paper and a cover letter would serve the same purpose. I sincerely doubt that a journal will pick it up, so it will most likely be self-published (again) and generally ignored (again).
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
The oddest thing about this new affair it is that ecat's report should be released soon... So, it's almost like this scam calling was done on purpose, right before its release. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Yeah, crazy stuff. I'm increasing the % here of Rossi being real to 40% though on the account of the scientists speaking out. They sound confident. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The oddest thing about this new affair it is that ecat's report should be released soon... So, it's almost like this scam calling was done on purpose, right before its release. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I sincerely doubt that a journal will pick it up, so it will most likely be self-published (again) and generally ignored (again). I think there is no chance any journal will publish this. Self-publication is fine. It will be ignored, but that does not matter either. Important people are aware of this, and they will act if the results are positive. As I have often said, a tight conspiracy is fine at this stage, as long as it includes People With Money. That is what we have been missing for the last 25 years. At this stage, we do not need support from general public or the readers of *Nature* magazine. Later, if it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, the conventional energy industry will attack the research. At present, only the plasma fusion scientists attack it, because they are the only ones threatened by it. Once it becomes generally known that Rossi devices run at kilowatts for months at a time, at high temperatures, you can be sure that the oil companies, coal, wind, conventional fission, and other energy producers will come down on cold fusion like a ton of bricks. The record of the energy industry shows what will happen. The Koch brothers and other vested interests in energy spend hundreds of millions fighting progress in the energy sector, and working to discredit climatology and global warming research. They pay for political campaigns, advertising, and they work behind the scenes buying off politicians and journalists. Not only do they fight against regulating CO2, they work to prevent the reduction of conventional air pollution from things like sulfur, and to stop North Carolina and other states from regulating coal ash dumps which threaten the entire state with massive release of with toxic chemicals. They managed to stop the development of electric cars until the Nissan Leaf came out. They battle against efficiency in light bulbs, refrigerators and automobiles. They encourage science-illiterate journalists such as George Will, who recently wrote that replacing incandescent lights with CFL and LED lights, . . . has no effect whatever on the planet, but it makes people feel good about themselves. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/may/11/george-will/george-will-incandescent-light-bulb-has-no-effect-/ I am sure the industry will ramp up these attacks 10-fold, or 100-fold to stop cold fusion. They will do everything in their power to cut research funding, slander the researchers, and prevent commercialization. Fortunately, commercialization will be paid for by a small number of powerful, wealthy people who will not be swayed by advertising campaigns. Once the political attacks begin, we will definitely need the general public! At that point, everything will depend on politics, and on rival public relations campaigns. Without broad public support there is no chance cold fusion will be commercialized. I doubt that the energy industry has prevented research up until now. I doubt they even knew about it, other than a small number of energy industry people who visit LENR-CANR.org. For the last 25 years research was stymied by people such as Robert Park, the Jasons and others in the physics establishment. I know for a fact these people have been pulling strings and interfering in normal funding and journal publication. Heck, they brag about doing that! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, crazy stuff. I'm increasing the % here of Rossi being real to 40% though on the account of the scientists speaking out. They sound confident. They are confident, but we cannot be sure they have a positive result this time. Even assuming the results really were positive last time, with no experimental error, that is no guarantee the thing worked this time. I meant that Rossi devices are unpredictable. They work in some tests, and then they stop working. Everyone I know who has tested them says that. Readers may recall a test we discussed at length where it took several hours for the thing start up. The data shows the anomalous heat starting up, then stopping. Finally it turned on and stayed on. During the second ELFORSK test, the reaction went out of control, the cell turned incandescent, and then melted. I do not think Rossi will admit even to himself how poorly controlled the devices are. This is what you expect from a prototype machine exhibiting a novel, unexplained phenomenon. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
A reasonable point. They may report high, uncontrollable COP. The isotopic analysis should stlll be be interesting though, if they actually did it. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, crazy stuff. I'm increasing the % here of Rossi being real to 40% though on the account of the scientists speaking out. They sound confident. They are confident, but we cannot be sure they have a positive result this time. Even assuming the results really were positive last time, with no experimental error, that is no guarantee the thing worked this time. I meant that Rossi devices are unpredictable. They work in some tests, and then they stop working. Everyone I know who has tested them says that. Readers may recall a test we discussed at length where it took several hours for the thing start up. The data shows the anomalous heat starting up, then stopping. Finally it turned on and stayed on. During the second ELFORSK test, the reaction went out of control, the cell turned incandescent, and then melted. I do not think Rossi will admit even to himself how poorly controlled the devices are. This is what you expect from a prototype machine exhibiting a novel, unexplained phenomenon. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
I agree with having an interested public. I also think that having a highly interested stakeholder could prove useful in the political realm. To that end I have been trying to get the trade association for the drought ravaged central California growers interested. If the coastal cities had enough available energy to economically suck on a straw from the Pacific, then the growers would have enough water to grow their veggies and stay in business. Not surprisingly I have yet to receive a nibble in response. But if the upcoming report is impressive I will take another crack at it. Steve High
[Vo]:LENR-CANR.org completely off line
Someone may have hacked the domain server. I was just on the phone with the domain people (Hyperstreet.com) for a half-hour. They have no idea what happened. I think they suspect an attack. Whois reports: Domain Status: clientHold Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited I told them I didn't put it on hold! They sorta said, or implied: well, someone did. I told them I authorize you to undo whatever it is that got done. This is not the first time I have had hacker problems, if that is what it is. I thought they were going to tell me I have not paid the bill. - Jed
[Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Hi all On the matter of scepticism: No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party test report: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main stream media as these and others did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the fundamental principles of the scientific method: In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report are engaged in religion not science. The Experiment is king. To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. Kind Regards walker
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible. When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me. LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all On the matter of scepticism: No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party test report: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main stream media as these and others did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the fundamental principles of the scientific method: In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report are engaged in religion not science. The Experiment is king. To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. Kind Regards walker
[Vo]:ECAT on AC Power Only
I do not recall seeing reference to this earlier. Rossi stated in his Journal that he uses AC source power to control the ECAT. According to his words it would be inefficient to convert the source power into DC when the heating apparently is the main function of the current. This suggests that the magnetic field originating from the heating source may not be important. It does not imply anything about other sources of magnetic fields. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Hi all In reply to Axil Axil The point I was making was clearly about the the lack of scientific basis of the Radio Reporter critique of a third party report that has not yet been published, so hence no basis on which to make their critique and about the use of ad homonym attacks rather than critique of testing methodology. On the matter of black box testing Rossi's pre loaded dry Ni/H reactor. That black box approach is a perfectly valid methodology in science and has been used in testing computer algorithms for decades and is the basis for the double blind tests that underpin modern medicine, I presume you are not saying that the Lancet does not engage in using scientific method? In point of fact all scientific experimental discovery is black box without exception, because until you establish effect you have no basis on which to discover cause. Kind Regards walker On 4 June 2014 16:40, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible. When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me. LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all On the matter of scepticism: No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party test report: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main stream media as these and others did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the fundamental principles of the scientific method: In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report are engaged in religion not science. The Experiment is king. To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. Kind Regards walker
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
We're at the magic stage. Science, anyone skilled in the art can reproduce it. Magic, only some skilled in the art can reproduce it. Religion, no one can reproduce it. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible. When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me. LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all On the matter of scepticism: No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party test report: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main stream media as these and others did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the fundamental principles of the scientific method: In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report are engaged in religion not science. The Experiment is king. To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. Kind Regards walker
Re: [Vo]:ECAT on AC Power Only
It does not imply anything about other sources of magnetic fields. Anything new from Rossi on magnetic fields produced by his invention? On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not recall seeing reference to this earlier. Rossi stated in his Journal that he uses AC source power to control the ECAT. According to his words it would be inefficient to convert the source power into DC when the heating apparently is the main function of the current. This suggests that the magnetic field originating from the heating source may not be important. It does not imply anything about other sources of magnetic fields. Dave
Re: [Vo]:ECAT on AC Power Only
I have not seen any reference from Rossi about the operation of his device in a long time. I suspect that the new owners of his technology want to keep trade secrets as long as possible. Rossi once was far more open to questions. He has not spoken of magnetic fields as related to his ECAT to my knowledge. Of course, if they were very important he would want to hold that information under tight control to keep others from researching it. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 12:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT on AC Power Only It does not imply anything about other sources of magnetic fields. Anything new from Rossi on magnetic fields produced by his invention? On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not recall seeing reference to this earlier. Rossi stated in his Journal that he uses AC source power to control the ECAT. According to his words it would be inefficient to convert the source power into DC when the heating apparently is the main function of the current. This suggests that the magnetic field originating from the heating source may not be important. It does not imply anything about other sources of magnetic fields. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
I like that On Wednesday, June 4, 2014, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: We're at the magic stage. Science, anyone skilled in the art can reproduce it. Magic, only some skilled in the art can reproduce it. Religion, no one can reproduce it. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','janap...@gmail.com'); wrote: The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible. When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me. LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','walker...@gmail.com'); wrote: Hi all On the matter of scepticism: No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party test report: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main stream media as these and others did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the fundamental principles of the scientific method: In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report are engaged in religion not science. The Experiment is king. To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. Kind Regards walker
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
That is a good description of the status! Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 12:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit We're at the magic stage. Science, anyone skilled in the art can reproduce it. Magic, only some skilled in the art can reproduce it. Religion, no one can reproduce it.
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Dear James I think this list is not complete: *Technology*- anybody paying for it and respecting some simple instructions can, use it. Unfortunately skilled in the art has to be defined in each case. Technology is much more than applied science. Peter On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: We're at the magic stage. Science, anyone skilled in the art can reproduce it. Magic, only some skilled in the art can reproduce it. Religion, no one can reproduce it. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible. When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me. LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all On the matter of scepticism: No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party test report: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main stream media as these and others did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the fundamental principles of the scientific method: In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report are engaged in religion not science. The Experiment is king. To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. Kind Regards walker -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:ECAT on AC Power Only
From: David Roberson I have not seen any reference from Rossi about the operation of his device in a long time. I suspect that the new owners of his technology want to keep trade secrets as long as possible. Rossi once was far more open to questions. BTW - here is a point that needs clarification. There are some reports that the upcoming report, which now seems to be called the 2014 TIP Report (Third Independent Party), instead of the Elforsk report (to avoid confusion with the earlier one) concerns the HT version, the so-called hot-cat, and the image from Lewan yesterday is of the that HT device but it looks like the widely distributed image from 2013. I have not followed Rossi's comments closely enough to know if the upcoming report will focus on the hot device alone, both versions, or only the earlier version. Has Rossi ever been pinned down on this detail? Jones
Re: [Vo]:ECAT on AC Power Only
Furthermore, pursuant to the new US patent laws, any technical tidbits that these builders release to the public cannot be protected by patent. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have not seen any reference from Rossi about the operation of his device in a long time. I suspect that the new owners of his technology want to keep trade secrets as long as possible. Rossi once was far more open to questions. He has not spoken of magnetic fields as related to his ECAT to my knowledge. Of course, if they were very important he would want to hold that information under tight control to keep others from researching it. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 12:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT on AC Power Only It does not imply anything about other sources of magnetic fields. Anything new from Rossi on magnetic fields produced by his invention? On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not recall seeing reference to this earlier. Rossi stated in his Journal that he uses AC source power to control the ECAT. According to his words it would be inefficient to convert the source power into DC when the heating apparently is the main function of the current. This suggests that the magnetic field originating from the heating source may not be important. It does not imply anything about other sources of magnetic fields. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Peter, I agree with what you said with two exceptions: 1) Technology does not necessarily imply money. There are huge amounts of open free technology -- particularly in software. 2) skilled in the art has a legal definition as a consequence of patent law's definition of disclosure. Although it is true that this must be defined in each case the legal definition is constant and is applied in case law. That said, I'd define, as the final stage: Technology, anyone who can afford it can use it. Folded into the word afford is not just money but the time it takes to follow the instructions. Folded into the word anyone is the reasonable connotation that they are an adult competent to manage their own affairs. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear James I think this list is not complete: *Technology*- anybody paying for it and respecting some simple instructions can, use it. Unfortunately skilled in the art has to be defined in each case. Technology is much more than applied science. Peter On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: We're at the magic stage. Science, anyone skilled in the art can reproduce it. Magic, only some skilled in the art can reproduce it. Religion, no one can reproduce it. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible. When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me. LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all On the matter of scepticism: No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party test report: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main stream media as these and others did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the fundamental principles of the scientific method: In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report are engaged in religion not science. The Experiment is king. To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. Kind Regards walker -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:ECAT on AC Power Only
Unless they've already submitted a patent app for them. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Furthermore, pursuant to the new US patent laws, any technical tidbits that these builders release to the public cannot be protected by patent. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have not seen any reference from Rossi about the operation of his device in a long time. I suspect that the new owners of his technology want to keep trade secrets as long as possible. Rossi once was far more open to questions. He has not spoken of magnetic fields as related to his ECAT to my knowledge. Of course, if they were very important he would want to hold that information under tight control to keep others from researching it. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 12:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT on AC Power Only It does not imply anything about other sources of magnetic fields. Anything new from Rossi on magnetic fields produced by his invention? On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not recall seeing reference to this earlier. Rossi stated in his Journal that he uses AC source power to control the ECAT. According to his words it would be inefficient to convert the source power into DC when the heating apparently is the main function of the current. This suggests that the magnetic field originating from the heating source may not be important. It does not imply anything about other sources of magnetic fields. Dave
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR.org completely off line
This was caused by ICANN's new domain verification process. This new process seems to be brainchild of some bureaucrat with too much time on his hands. It is a laff riot. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Dear James, your definition is perfect, thanks 1) is irrelevant THIS technology implies money, a lot, in and out. 2) re patents, know-how I am speaking from practice. Rarely patents are sold without know how. Peter On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, I agree with what you said with two exceptions: 1) Technology does not necessarily imply money. There are huge amounts of open free technology -- particularly in software. 2) skilled in the art has a legal definition as a consequence of patent law's definition of disclosure. Although it is true that this must be defined in each case the legal definition is constant and is applied in case law. That said, I'd define, as the final stage: Technology, anyone who can afford it can use it. Folded into the word afford is not just money but the time it takes to follow the instructions. Folded into the word anyone is the reasonable connotation that they are an adult competent to manage their own affairs. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear James I think this list is not complete: *Technology*- anybody paying for it and respecting some simple instructions can, use it. Unfortunately skilled in the art has to be defined in each case. Technology is much more than applied science. Peter On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:00 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: We're at the magic stage. Science, anyone skilled in the art can reproduce it. Magic, only some skilled in the art can reproduce it. Religion, no one can reproduce it. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible. When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me. LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all On the matter of scepticism: No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party test report: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main stream media as these and others did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the fundamental principles of the scientific method: In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report are engaged in religion not science. The Experiment is king. To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope. Kind Regards walker -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
At 08:40 AM 6/4/2014, you wrote: The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible. You can put your eye to the telescope without knowing what lenses are, and how refraction works. Particles? Waves? You can see Jupiter's moons and Saturn's rings.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: How do you view the decision to not build a higher sea wall? Unfortunate. But understandable. The previous tsunami of this magnitude occurred in 869 AD. There were records of it, and even man-markers of the high water mark. But I think experts assumed the ancient records were exaggerations. See: http://www.pri.org/stories/2012-01-17/scientist-warned-tsunami-disaster-japan http://www.pri.org/stories/2012-01-17/scientist-warned-tsunami-disaster-japan I have heard they are now going back and reviewing these ancient records and paying closer attention than they did before the disaster. In retrospect, I think they should have moved the emergency generator fuel tanks to a safer location. That would not have prevented damage to the facility, but it would have stopped the event from spiraling into a disaster. It would be cheaper and faster than building a better seawall, I think. It would take a gigantic seawall to stop this, judging by the videos of the tsunami striking the plant. Was it an acceptable cost vs risk tradeoff or a criminal mistake? I do not think it was criminal. Responsibility is too dispersed. Obviously, in retrospect, it was not acceptable. I do not know how I might have judged it before the event. Hindsight is easy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
about the problem some people have with the unknown is fascinating. Am I a genius in understanding what is a black box test ? in assuming that if some heat above any known chemical process, above the theoretical chemistry limit, thus there is something ... interesting to look further ? It is the same for the difference between the importance of successful experiments compared to failed experiment... I cannot understand how people with PhD can be so... illogical. i understand why most people trust that absurdities on wikipravda... because it is so illogical, so clearly stupid, so evident for someone above high-school level, that any educated citizen, andy over educated scientists, assume that he missed a point and feel he have to trust, because he is too stupid to understand that superior absurd logic. sometime I feel happy to be a simple mind... the Beaudette doctrine is simple : it produce heat, ok... now explanations are another problem. ...p when i think agains of educated people like Pomp who use the rate of failure as an evidence... who criticize low success rate... did he miss all TV document on scientific discovery? maybe academics should look more TV. and people not understanding what is a blackbox test... I have models, of groupthink, of paradigm change, but it looks so crazy for educated people to miss evidences a kid above 7 can understand. 2014-06-04 19:45 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: At 08:40 AM 6/4/2014, you wrote: The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long as possible. You can put your eye to the telescope without knowing what lenses are, and how refraction works. Particles? Waves? You can see Jupiter's moons and Saturn's rings.
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: about the problem some people have with the unknown is fascinating. I think that is the core problem. Fear of novelty is common in many animals. It is a healthy evolved response, but it gets in the way of science. Am I a genius in understanding what is a black box test ? As you say, it is remarkable how many trained scientists fail to understand this concept. It is the same for the difference between the importance of successful experiments compared to failed experiment... Yes. They often want to compare successful experiments to failed ones, to reach a sort of average, or do science by vote. In another forum, I wrote: In the late 1950s, Russia and the U.S. were building and launching rockets to reach orbit. Several of these rockets failed. Finally, in 1957 the Russians reached orbit with the Sputnik I. This proved beyond question that it is possible to reach orbit. All of the previous and subsequent failures did not disprove that. They only proved that the technology is difficult to master, and unreliable. . . . The cold fusion effect is difficult to reproduce. Many research groups failed to reproduce it, and they published negative results. That does not prove cold fusion does not exist any more than the failed U.S. Vanguard rocket launches of 1957 and 1958 proved that rockets cannot reach orbit. It is depressing how many scientists do not understand this. I cannot understand how people with PhD can be so... illogical. Apparently they do not teach elementary logic in college science courses. I guess they think science majors have already learned it. People did learn that in school decades ago, but not now. People also do not learn to recognize logical fallacies, such as these: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
To Alain and Jed, I think you guys are on to what I call the difference between an entrepreneur (a very misused word) and not an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs are fearless about new things. However to be a successful entrepreneur you need to be logical and the hardest - You have to accept the simple answers. The simple answers is like when Alexander solved the Gordian knot. I find a lot of entrepreneurship in this group. However, it is amazing - even here - how wild ideas are silenced by 'we did that already in the nineties and there is nothing, which has changed since then - so why do you think . . . . Looking forward to see a positive report from Rossi's long term test. I have seen several suggestions about how to produce electricity instead of heat. I have not fully understood, which are the theoretical limits for efficiency. We all understand the limits of the Otto motor and a turbine. If the theoretical limits are better for any other conversion method it would be interesting to know how far away from reality they are. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: about the problem some people have with the unknown is fascinating. I think that is the core problem. Fear of novelty is common in many animals. It is a healthy evolved response, but it gets in the way of science. Am I a genius in understanding what is a black box test ? As you say, it is remarkable how many trained scientists fail to understand this concept. It is the same for the difference between the importance of successful experiments compared to failed experiment... Yes. They often want to compare successful experiments to failed ones, to reach a sort of average, or do science by vote. In another forum, I wrote: In the late 1950s, Russia and the U.S. were building and launching rockets to reach orbit. Several of these rockets failed. Finally, in 1957 the Russians reached orbit with the Sputnik I. This proved beyond question that it is possible to reach orbit. All of the previous and subsequent failures did not disprove that. They only proved that the technology is difficult to master, and unreliable. . . . The cold fusion effect is difficult to reproduce. Many research groups failed to reproduce it, and they published negative results. That does not prove cold fusion does not exist any more than the failed U.S. Vanguard rocket launches of 1957 and 1958 proved that rockets cannot reach orbit. It is depressing how many scientists do not understand this. I cannot understand how people with PhD can be so... illogical. Apparently they do not teach elementary logic in college science courses. I guess they think science majors have already learned it. People did learn that in school decades ago, but not now. People also do not learn to recognize logical fallacies, such as these: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I think you guys are on to what I call the difference between an entrepreneur (a very misused word) and not an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs are fearless about new things. However to be a successful entrepreneur you need to be logical and the hardest . . . Yeah. One caution though. A personality is not unified. A person can boldly accept change in one aspect of life, but reject it in another. Perhaps the best example of that was Franklin Roosevelt. He was conservative and he loved traditions, yet he was also innovative, bold and willing to try anything. Martin Fleischmann used to say, Stan and I are painfully conventional people. He meant it. In many ways, they were. Oliver Heaviside was one of the boldest and most unconventional physicists in history. His personal life was the opposite. He held one job for a few years, and then spent the rest of his life at home. He was a recluse, following routines, never marrying. Perhaps he needed to hang on to dull routine to counterbalance his bold exploration of the unknown. I myself like to do the same thing every day, like clockwork, living a bit like a monk. I eat pretty much the same foods, and go to the same places for vacation. Quiet and boring places. I would make a good teacher because I do not mind repeating myself. I loathe taking any kind of unnecessary risk, such as driving faster than the speed limit. On the other hand, I have spent decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars on cold fusion and I have absolutely nothing to show for it -- not a milligram of success! But no regrets. I would do it again without hesitation. If I live another 20 years still capable of it, I will be doing it the last day of my life, even if I am certain there is no hope of success. I am with Winston Churchill on this. As he said in 1941: . . . never give in, never give in, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/103-never-give-in And Édith Piaf: Non, je ne regrette rien. Regarding life's Important Decisions and Turning Points, I agree with Satchel Paige: Don't look back; something might be gaining on you. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Jed, I've just read your modus operandi, and again I find myself wanting to say: Have you considered putting together a historical account of the Saga of Cold Fusion? You've already written a book 10 years ago on how Cold Fusion has the potential to transform the world for the better. You obviously know how to go about assembling such a project. It would not be just about assembling dry facts, though obviously a smattering of such fiddly bits would be an important contribution. It seems to me that should it become a generally accepted fact that CF (or whatever the popular culture end up calling it) is a legitimate technology, many will begin to thirst for a historical account of how the technology came about in the first place. Many will wonder why the hell it took so long. I can think of no better person who could help explain to the general public why it is taking so long to manifest. IMHO, your grasp of general history is impressive. Your ability to see the history of CF in context with the rest of your knowledge of general history is the key. No doubt this will take several years to assemble, particularly since so much is yet to happen. However, I'm absolutely sure you will get help from many who would be honored to help proof-read such an endeavor. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
[Vo]:Heavy Fermion Metals that contain Nickel
Greetings Vortex, http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-criticality-class-materials.html Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
But you don't increase the % on the thread where you introduced that practice. So I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.61%, taking into account the Coriolis effect on this year's election cycle. At least this time Blaze increased the chances of Rossi being real on the basis of stuff that had SOMEthing to do with Rossi. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, crazy stuff. I'm increasing the % here of Rossi being real to 40% though on the account of the scientists speaking out. They sound confident. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The oddest thing about this new affair it is that ecat's report should be released soon... So, it's almost like this scam calling was done on purpose, right before its release. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:A tipping point?
Here's how I think it will go down based upon long term observation and Rossi's hints. It will be a positive TIP report. The TIP report will be ignored in the industry. Rossi IH will announce that they intend to demo to their patent application which was denied recently due to being impossible, similar to how the Wright brothers were denied publication of an article in Scientific American because such a thing was impossible. Rossi will set up Hydrofusion to do a public demo. Whoever wants to pay the $5 fee can go see a cold fusion reactor working in the field. IH will propose that their patent demo should take place on this site. It is intended to create the same kind of media circus that the Wright brothers created for their demos. The industry will be turned on its head before Rossi is even granted the patent. CYPW Cyclone Power stock will skyrocket. Oil futures will plummet. Bye bye, petrol-funded terrorism. Huge patent wars will break out, just like what happened when dozens of people stole the Wright brothers' IP (like Glenn Curtiss), but it won't be resolved in the same manner. That's because it was a patent mashup effort by the military in WWI that forced the Wright brothers' hand and gave shysters like Curtiss more than their fair market share. The way I view Rossi is that he's like Daniel Boone. He will lead everyone to the green pastures of the Ohio Valley but he won't think the end result was worth the effort because so many of those who came after him trampled on the beautiful territories he opened up. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In a bit of historical retrospective, last evening I watched a fabulous bit of history about the beautiful aftermath of treachery ... at least that is one way to describe the Silicon Valley, the American Experience a film by Randall MacLowry of WGBH Boston. There are parallels to LENR which are worth thinking about. The documentary covers the miraculous transformation of Santa Clara County from cheap Orchard land into the most important bit of technology real estate on Earth, with a GDP twice as high as Saudi Arabia. The backstory episode was known as The traitorous eight in reference to the eight men who left Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in 1957 to form Fairchild. The two dozen multi-billion dollar companies that formed later from further treachery, following the initial dispersal are called Fairchildren. William Shockley had received a Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the transistor but was unfit as a corporate manager, and his prize team of recruits left the company at a time before Venture Capital encouraged this tactic - and in fact VC pretty much developed out of the progression of Semiconductors - ICs - CPUs - Computers - Internet - Cell phones. Anyway, in some ways the LENR optimist could envision a scenario which is not unlike this former one in Silicon Valley being poised to happen for the upcoming development of the new technology of alternative energy based on LENR in a prime area with the proper funding and labor supply. Even if the TIP announcement of the Rossi effect is more momentous than some believe it will be, and despite the availability of Sand Hill Road, I do not see this same rapid deployment happening again in Silicon Valley, although it could in principle... since the brain-power and VC capital is here. In the USA as a whole, and Silicon Valley in particular - prices are too high, there is too much wealth, and the vision of a sustainable future is clouded - plus money can go anywhere and it usually chooses the best value. But even China may not provide the best value. The Next Big Thing in breakthrough technology will probably happen in alternative energy, but the location of Hydrogen Valley is undetermined for now, and could be influenced by a single wealthy individual - and then of course - by an aftermath of treachery. I also noticed that some fool was willing to pay $2 billion for a basketball team - what a waste considering that kind of seed money could bring in more to one location than the $1.5 trillion that Sherman Fairchild's small investment did for SV. That kind of money put into the first LENR program could assure at least that the Pioneer company, whether it be IH or Clean Planet (the Japanese startup headed by Yoshino and based on Mizuno's technology) - would at least attract the talented traitors. BTW - Yoshino seems to have many of the same qualities and the charisma of Bob Noyce. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Heavy Fermion Metals that contain Nickel
IMHO, highly correlated electron systems are the bedrock upon which LENR is built. The complicated interplay between magnetism, temperature, condensed matter, electrons, and quantum mechanics produces many strange effects including superconductivity and the hydrino ( fractional orbitons). http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1212.3241v2.pdf Regarding fractional orbitons. This extreme complexity will keep LENR out of the common understanding of all but a few specialist and limit its development and growth. http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0612006v3.pdf Abstract An introduction to the physics of heavy fermion compounds is presented, highlighting the conceptual developments and emphasizing the mysteries and open questions that persist in this active field of research. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex, http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-criticality-class-materials.html Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Kevin, Lighten up. Cardinal rule here is no personal attacks… You’ve got your opinion, he’s got his… and you know what they say about opinions… they’re like ASS*oles… everyone’s got one, and noone wants to look at the other person’s. -Mark Iverson From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:05 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit But you don't increase the % on the thread where you introduced that practice. So I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.61%, taking into account the Coriolis effect on this year's election cycle. At least this time Blaze increased the chances of Rossi being real on the basis of stuff that had SOMEthing to do with Rossi. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, crazy stuff. I'm increasing the % here of Rossi being real to 40% though on the account of the scientists speaking out. They sound confident. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The oddest thing about this new affair it is that ecat's report should be released soon... So, it's almost like this scam calling was done on purpose, right before its release. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Kevin, Lighten up. ***NO. Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from your pocket and every other vortician's pocket. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html He even admits to wanting to take your money. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html The rules bend under such circumstances. Lighten up becomes Get a clue.
