RE: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Regarding: The Big Lie Technique of Scammers, Courtesy of Adolf Hitler http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/the-big-lie-technique-of-scammers- courtesy-of-adolf-hitler/ In regards to the pursuit of scientific investigation, personally I think the late author Jacob Bronowski said it much more eloquently in the following short You Tube clip from Bronowski's award winning series, The Ascent of Man. This excerpt was from the show titled Knowledge or Certainty. It depicts the folly mankind can suffer from when we allow ourselves to fall victim to believing we possess absolute certainty in our opinions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXsVKbHY_T0 Some might wonder if I posted this clip as a kind of warning pertaining to Rossi's apparent displays of arrogance. .others might wonder if it was meant for Krivit. Being possessed with a sense of absolute certainty in regards to an opinion is an equal opportunity employer. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com wrote: One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away . . . This is what Rossi has said on many occasions. He says he cannot leave the thing, especially in self-sustaining mode. The idea that Rossi would do an unconvincing demo because he needed to empty his bladder or get some sleep, and could not delegate control for a while, makes little sense. Rossi is not doing the whole thing by himself. He has a team working with/for him. If he wanted to put on a convincing demo, especially when the observers included an engineer from NASA, a possible source of all that nice money, then wouldn't he have taught the team members how to do whatever was needed to periodically stabilize the reaction?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Rossi has stated each E-Cat module has it own control system. There are 2 wires / cables connected to each module in addition to a earth wire plus the 2 heater power wires. I doubt the 2 non heater power wires are there for show. Additionally it has been disclosed that Rossi and NI have been working together for some time as well as the fact that Rossi had 107 modules working in parallel for 5.5 hours and maintained a very good regulation on the heat output. I really doubt he can manually control 107 E-Cat modules for 10 minutes yet alone for 5.5 hours.There must be a good control system with monitoring and control for each E-Cat module as well as a master control system to coordinate the 107 modules to maintain the desired operational mode and output. He has also stated that each plant is delivered with a fully functional control system and full instructions for plant start up and operation. There is much that Rossi has yet to reveal. AG On 11/11/2011 11:06 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: Higgins Bob-CBH003bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com wrote: One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away . . . This is what Rossi has said on many occasions. He says he cannot leave the thing, especially in self-sustaining mode. The idea that Rossi would do an unconvincing demo because he needed to empty his bladder or get some sleep, and could not delegate control for a while, makes little sense. Rossi is not doing the whole thing by himself. He has a team working with/for him. If he wanted to put on a convincing demo, especially when the observers included an engineer from NASA, a possible source of all that nice money, then wouldn't he have taught the team members how to do whatever was needed to periodically stabilize the reaction?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
David Roberson wrote: Jed, I am waiting for Mary to give an example. It is not your question. Just in case someone were to scam your experiment, you have to realize that there are no limits on what is acceptable. You would not be able to set up the final experiment since that is part of the scam. Sorry, I have confused the issue here. I did not mean that it is impossible for a devious person to set up a bogus demonstration of a fake x-ray. I meant that it is possible for an honest person to set up an irrefutable demonstration of an x-ray, or the other items I listed. An honest person could arrange a demonstration in such a way that no valid technical objection could be raised. By the way, when I said that the quantum levitation is irrefutable, I did not mean that the YouTube video itself constitutes proof. A video can always be faked. I meant that a live demonstration of that would be irrefutable. Some of these items, such as the laser, cannot be faked as far as I know. When I first saw laser shining through a cloud of thermal fog in a demonstration, it was obvious to me that this was no ordinary beam of light. No ordinary beam of light can do what a laser does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
/snip/ Additionally it has been disclosed that Rossi and NI have been working together for some time as well as the fact that Rossi had 107 modules working in parallel for 5.5 hours and maintained a very good regulation on the heat output. /snip/ Statements from NI do not indicate that they have been directly working with Rossi in any capacity that would convince them that his technology actually works: I would love for him to be right. We support every kind of research for the betterment of human kind. Whoever is interested in doing that, we would be happy to support. They have confirmed that they are willing to develop controls for Rossi. Their statements make it pretty evident that they are NOT confirming that the technology works. It is a very positive sign that Rossi is developing some manufacturing channels, and it lends credulity to his production claims. On the other side of the coin, earlier this year, the claims coming out of Defkalion had the same effect. N.I., though, is a real company I'll take a lot more stock in their press releases than any that have come so far.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Vorl Bek wrote: This is what Rossi has said on many occasions. He says he cannot leave the thing, especially in self-sustaining mode. The idea that Rossi would do an unconvincing demo because he needed to empty his bladder or get some sleep, and could not delegate control for a while, makes little sense. Indeed, that makes no sense at all. But what you are describing did not happen. Rossi did a convincing demo. He stopped because he and the observers needed to get some sleep. That's what Lewan and the others told me. You think it was not convincing, but the observers, Rossi and I disagree. The observers were the ones who needed to be convinced in this instance. Since the test did convince them, it was long enough. If you had been an observer perhaps it makes sense to say it would not be long enough. Rossi said that the single-cell small reactors he demonstrated earlier were manually controlled. As AG pointed out, you can never control the 1 MW reactor with 100 cells in it by manual methods. Rossi never said that was manually controlled and neither did I. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Vorl Bek wrote: This is what Rossi has said on many occasions. He says he cannot leave the thing, especially in self-sustaining mode. The idea that Rossi would do an unconvincing demo because he needed to empty his bladder or get some sleep, and could not delegate control for a while, makes little sense. Indeed, that makes no sense at all. But what you are describing did not happen. Rossi did a convincing demo. He stopped because he and the observers needed to get some sleep. That's what Lewan and the others told me. The demo that Nelson saw was not convincing, at least to Nelson: According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim. Nelson wanted to see a longer demo. Apparently he would have been able to do without sleep, or would have stood shifts with a colleague. Presumably, Rossi, who wants to make money, knew that the observer, or one of the observers, was a NASA engineer. To do a demo for somebody like Nelson, who, if convinced, might run back to Washington and recommend that his bosses spend a couple of million to get hold of the amazing device, it seems like human nature to put on the best show possible, but Rossi could not be bothered. Strange.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past? I tried and can not come up with one, so give it a try. There are many ways to suggest a trick that could, maybe be done. I will grant you this: Rossi has left the possible field open to a lot of tricks. Give one example of an experiment that is fool proof to save me from having to think too hard. I bet the vortex can figure a way to fake any you name. OK, I'll play. Fake an atomic bomb. But the argument is silly. I agree almost any subtle looking and complex experiment can be faked. THAT'S MY POINT. And Rossi's experiments are so loosely done and so different from one to another that it's hard to follow what he's doing. The whole purpose of having independent testing is to rule out fakery. Sure, the experimenters can be in on a scam. That's why they need to have no association with Rossi and an excellent reputation for skill and fairness. That's why I named the companies and labs I did. You suggest that because we accept other experiments from the past that could have been faked, we should also accept Rossi's. But that's defective reasoning. The only evidence that Rossi's device works has always involved Rossi's equipment and methods. That's the problem. The problem is not that anything can be a scam. It's that Rossi's device could fairly easily be a scam. The corollary is that a scam can be easily ruled out except that Rossi, who has done all sorts of complicated and time/effort consuming maneuvers, won't allow it!
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
I think there is a consensus that Rossi was the control mechanism for his earlier devices. If this is the situation, he will not be able to leave for any extended length of time. The self sustaining mode, if that is what they witnessed, will require careful control if operated for very long. I find it hard to accept the definition of *self sustaining* mode if any form of power is being applied during this period. It appears to be more of a *let it run until it dies* mode that I have seen supported. Far as I know, it's never been allowed to die. That would be interesting. Instead it has always been stopped after a relatively short time (a few hours) except for Levi's test but detailed records of that have not been made available and, sadly, it has not been repeated. Rossi makes a big deal about running self sustained but it's really not a big issue if he has to provide a bit of electrical power. That is not the problem with the demonstrations and never has been. Sure it would be nice to have the thing sitting on a glass table in the desert isolated from anything and have it run for weeks. But that's not necessary to prove it's real.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
/snip/ Additionally it has been disclosed that Rossi and NI have been working together for some time as well as the fact that Rossi had 107 modules working in parallel for 5.5 hours and maintained a very good regulation on the heat output. /snip/ The reactivity of Rossi's reactor is directly related to the tendency of the reactor core to change power level: if reactivity is positive, the core power tends to increase; if it is negative, the core power tends to decrease; if it is zero, the core power tends to remain stable. For the E Cat the reactivity adjusts sharply in both the positive and negative direction. Once this reactor begins to follow a changing slope, it does not self adjust. The adjustment must be done manually. The operator must monitor the slope of reactivity to insure it stays in the goldilocks zone. The reactivity of the core may be adjusted by the reactor control system in order to obtain a desired power level change (or to keep the same power level). It can be compared to the reaction of an automobile as conditions around it change (for instance, wind intensity and direction or road slope), and therefore the corresponding counter-measure that the driver applies to maintain road speed or execute a desired maneuver. Up until now, Rossi has not developed an automated control system. He may be smart but not that smart and such a job is probably beyond his skill set. Coming up with a control system that works well requires decades of specialized computerized automation expertise that Rossi may have not had time to establish. Such an automated control system can adjust reactivity in many ways, including hydrogen temperature and pressure, reactor wall and powder temperature, and internal and external heater temperatures. Net reactivity in this reactor is the sum total of all these contributions and is very difficult to properly coordinate manually. This is why Rossi has contracted a top company with experience in this field to help him in his continuing development of the E-Cat. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: /snip/ Additionally it has been disclosed that Rossi and NI have been working together for some time as well as the fact that Rossi had 107 modules working in parallel for 5.5 hours and maintained a very good regulation on the heat output. /snip/ Statements from NI do not indicate that they have been directly working with Rossi in any capacity that would convince them that his technology actually works: I would love for him to be right. We support every kind of research for the betterment of human kind. Whoever is interested in doing that, we would be happy to support. They have confirmed that they are willing to develop controls for Rossi. Their statements make it pretty evident that they are NOT confirming that the technology works. It is a very positive sign that Rossi is developing some manufacturing channels, and it lends credulity to his production claims. On the other side of the coin, earlier this year, the claims coming out of Defkalion had the same effect. N.I., though, is a real company I'll take a lot more stock in their press releases than any that have come so far.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
OK Mary, you are correct in realizing that Rossi could be attempting a fake. Many of his supporters have reviewed the sparse data supplied during his demonstrations and have convinced ourselves that it is real. I am confident that we are seeing a real LENR device. Rossi succeeded in operating a single core ECAT for a length of time that makes it dificult to be absolutely 100 % certain that it could not be faked. Now the game, some atomic bombs are suitcase size and have a small yield. I perform an underground test of a very large quaintly of conventional explosives that has a yield equal to the suitcase device that I show you before I safely lower it into the cavity to be sealed within. Of course I do not allow you to inspect my setup before the test or bring your equipment as it is too dangerous for you to enter the cavity. Who knows, you might break a finger nail or something. ;-) This is similiar to the proceedure that magicians use when they do their magic. No more games Mary. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past? I tried and can not come up with one, so give it a try. There are many ways to suggest a trick that could, maybe be done. I will grant you this: Rossi has left the possible field open to a lot of tricks. Give one example of an experiment that is fool proof to save me from having to think too hard. I bet the vortex can figure a way to fake any you name. OK, I'll play. Fake an atomic bomb. But the argument is silly. I agree almost any subtle looking and complex experiment can be faked. THAT'S MY POINT. And Rossi's experiments are so loosely done and so different from one to another that it's hard to follow what he's doing. The whole purpose of having independent testing is to rule out fakery. Sure, the experimenters can be in on a scam. That's why they need to have no association with Rossi and an excellent reputation for skill and fairness. That's why I named the companies and labs I did. You suggest that because we accept other experiments from the past that could have been faked, we should also accept Rossi's. But that's defective reasoning. The only evidence that Rossi's device works has always involved Rossi's equipment and methods. That's the problem. The problem is not that anything can be a scam. It's that Rossi's device could fairly easily be a scam. The corollary is that a scam can be easily ruled out except that Rossi, who has done all sorts of complicated and time/effort consuming maneuvers, won't allow it!
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
OK Mary, you are correct in realizing that Rossi could be attempting a fake. Many of his supporters have reviewed the sparse data supplied during his demonstrations and have convinced ourselves that it is real. I am confident that we are seeing a real LENR device. I'm happy for you, David, but your being convinced doesn't help me a bit. Rossi succeeded in operating a single core ECAT for a length of time that makes it dificult to be absolutely 100 % certain that it could not be faked. Right. Now the game, some atomic bombs are suitcase size and have a small yield. I perform an underground test of a very large quaintly of conventional explosives that has a yield equal to the suitcase device that I show you before I safely lower it into the cavity to be sealed within. Of course I do not allow you to inspect my setup before the test or bring your equipment as it is too dangerous for you to enter the cavity. Who knows, you might break a finger nail or something. ;-) This is similiar to the proceedure that magicians use when they do their magic. Uh... that proves my point. AGAIN! That you get the same effect by faking it. And it's what Rossi did in the megawatt demo -- nobody was allowed to see essentially anything. What was the question again? No more games Mary. What games are those, David?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
“Many of his supporters have reviewed the sparse data supplied during his demonstrations and have convinced ourselves that it is real.” There are different levels of SCAM that Rossi can be perpetrating. The one level that I think currently applies to Rossi is the ability of his reactor to function for months on end to provide industrial heat safely in a factory setting. This he says he has now demonstrated but I find this very hard to believe. It is analogous to the Wright brothers claiming the ability to fly the Atlantic after their first demo of powered flight. At that time in the history of aviation, an enlighten observer could have foreseen that this capacity to connect the continents of the world could be developed in the future from the beginnings of the first airplane demo but that observer would be foolish to buy a ticket to fly the Atlantic without many transatlantic crossings routinely done clearly in the full glare of the public eye. This claim of sustained industrial heat production that Rossi is now making is not believable even though the potential may eventually be there. I think that Rossi like most entrepreneurs are sorely tempted to exaggerate the current state of the capabilities of their invention to gain continued funding for their RD. * * On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:44 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK Mary, you are correct in realizing that Rossi could be attempting a fake. Many of his supporters have reviewed the sparse data supplied during his demonstrations and have convinced ourselves that it is real. I am confident that we are seeing a real LENR device. Rossi succeeded in operating a single core ECAT for a length of time that makes it dificult to be absolutely 100 % certain that it could not be faked. Now the game, some atomic bombs are suitcase size and have a small yield. I perform an underground test of a very large quaintly of conventional explosives that has a yield equal to the suitcase device that I show you before I safely lower it into the cavity to be sealed within. Of course I do not allow you to inspect my setup before the test or bring your equipment as it is too dangerous for you to enter the cavity. Who knows, you might break a finger nail or something. ;-) This is similiar to the proceedure that magicians use when they do their magic. No more games Mary. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past? I tried and can not come up with one, so give it a try. There are many ways to suggest a trick that could, maybe be done. I will grant you this: Rossi has left the possible field open to a lot of tricks. Give one example of an experiment that is fool proof to save me from having to think too hard. I bet the vortex can figure a way to fake any you name. OK, I'll play. Fake an atomic bomb. But the argument is silly. I agree almost any subtle looking and complex experiment can be faked. THAT'S MY POINT. And Rossi's experiments are so loosely done and so different from one to another that it's hard to follow what he's doing. The whole purpose of having independent testing is to rule out fakery. Sure, the experimenters can be in on a scam. That's why they need to have no association with Rossi and an excellent reputation for skill and fairness. That's why I named the companies and labs I did. You suggest that because we accept other experiments from the past that could have been faked, we should also accept Rossi's. But that's defective reasoning. The only evidence that Rossi's device works has always involved Rossi's equipment and methods. That's the problem. The problem is not that anything can be a scam. It's that Rossi's device could fairly easily be a scam. The corollary is that a scam can be easily ruled out except that Rossi, who has done all sorts of complicated and time/effort consuming maneuvers, won't allow it!
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Faking experiments is beginning to become boring so let's call it a day. That is the game I made reference to. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 1:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade OK Mary, you are correct in realizing that Rossi could be attempting a fake. Many of his supporters have reviewed the sparse data supplied during his demonstrations and have convinced ourselves that it is real. I am confident that we are seeing a real LENR device. I'm happy for you, David, but your being convinced doesn't help me a bit. Rossi succeeded in operating a single core ECAT for a length of time that makes it dificult to be absolutely 100 % certain that it could not be faked. Right. Now the game, some atomic bombs are suitcase size and have a small yield. I perform an underground test of a very large quaintly of conventional explosives that has a yield equal to the suitcase device that I show you before I safely lower it into the cavity to be sealed within. Of course I do not allow you to inspect my setup before the test or bring your equipment as it is too dangerous for you to enter the cavity. Who knows, you might break a finger nail or something. ;-) This is similiar to the proceedure that magicians use when they do their magic. Uh... that proves my point. AGAIN! That you get the same effect by faking it. And it's what Rossi did in the megawatt demo -- nobody was allowed to see essentially anything. What was the question again? No more games Mary. What games are those, David?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Daniel Rocha wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale An interesting example. This was a conventional explosion that simulated a 4.8 kt nuclear explosion. A person observing this from a distance might have difficulty determining whether it is nuclear or chemical. Of course if you used radiation detection you would know. If you saw the bomb here before they detonated it, you would see that it is made up of 4800 tons of explosive, meaning it is chemical. Seen from a distance, this would be an ambiguous test. I did not say that there is no such thing as ambiguous or unclear result. I said that some tests in some cases can produce irrefutable proof that a phenomenon exists. A much larger explosion from a small object is proof that the explosion is nuclear, not chemical. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
oh oh. This is not the proof we wanted :) http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mystery-radiation-detected-europe/story?id=14932064#.Tr1zdcNFunA On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Minor_Scalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale An interesting example. This was a conventional explosion that simulated a 4.8 kt nuclear explosion. A person observing this from a distance might have difficulty determining whether it is nuclear or chemical. Of course if you used radiation detection you would know. If you saw the bomb here before they detonated it, you would see that it is made up of 4800 tons of explosive, meaning it is chemical. Seen from a distance, this would be an ambiguous test. I did not say that there is no such thing as ambiguous or unclear result. I said that some tests in some cases can produce irrefutable proof that a phenomenon exists. A much larger explosion from a small object is proof that the explosion is nuclear, not chemical. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Faking experiments is beginning to become boring so let's call it a day. That is the game I made reference to. Sorry if it bores you. The possibility that everything Rossi has shown is fake and that all the people who have endorsed it are being flummoxed is fascinating to me. So much of life, especially advertising and sales, involves some level of deception that it's interesting to study it. I apologize if I'm boring anyone. But I'm mainly responding to issues raised (at least in my mind) by what others have written (and sometimes rewritten again and again). I have to admit I sometimes find some of the arguments about whether Rossi measured dry steam properly to be boring. All could have resolved with a single blank run using an E-cat powered only by an electric heater -- and the heater is right there inside the thing! And Rossi has been told this in many places by many people again and again including on his own blog. And he always answers it's not necessary. Jed says HVAC and boiler people don't run blanks and he's right but then those folks aren't out to prove that a collection of lame looking plumbing parts is a fusion reactor!
RE: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
From: Jeff Sutton This is not the proof we wanted :) http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mystery-radiation-detected-europe/story?id=149 32064#.Tr1zdcNFunA http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mystery-radiation-detected-europe/story?id=14 932064 This story involves the release of iodine-131, apparently alone (or else it could related to an accident at a specific source). Notably, Iodine-131 can potentially come from tellurium in a low energy nuclear reaction (with or without W-L theory). The release could be from mishandling spent fuel, or from an unreported accident (Iran and Israel come to mind as countries which would not report it) but the Rossi reactor is not ruled out. In fact, Rossi has a known history with tellurium and since only iodine is seen, it is a curious state of affiars. But, even though this is a possible scenario, and the catalyst in E-Cat could be tellurium, element 52, it is admittedly NOT likely - but nevertheless it should be mentioned, for the sake of future reference if nothing else. Tellurium was considered to be a good catalyst candidate early on, since it forms into 2D layers in a way that seems to mirror the dense hydrogen state - pycno. Topologically protected surface states are the important 2D feature of bismuth telluride. Rossi's long history with bismuth telluride goes back to his years in New Hampshire with Leonardo, and the failed TEG project. In the presence of spillover hydrogen, 'topologically protected surface states' points towards a possible operative mechanism for the E-Cat device. Wiki has an entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_insulator A topological insulator is a material that behaves as a thermal insulator in its interior while permitting the movement of charges on its boundary. In fact bismuth-telluride conducts electricity like a metal but conducts heat poorly - like glass. The internal stress resulting for this contradictory set of physical properties on must be severe. This stress will create nano-cracking, cavity formation, and local pressurization. The material may allow spillover hydrogen to accumulate via mirror charges (Lawandy), and then further densify in nanocavities, which are more like surface nano-pits. Heat is retained deep in the pit but not at the surface, providing a high stress-interface. Tellurium's most stable isotope is 130 - and it is extremely 'neutron rich' so that the addition of a proton would be expected in result in unstable iodine 131. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
I wrote This is not the proof we wanted :) It was intended to be humorousRossi does major 1MW test at the end of October and in November there is a radioactive pollution across Europe from an unknown source. The skeptics would be proven wrong and the optimists would be wishing the skeptics were right :) Smile Jones :) On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jeff Sutton This is not the proof we wanted :) http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mystery-radiation-detected-europe/story?id=149 32064#.Tr1zdcNFunA http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mystery-radiation-detected-europe/story?id=14 932064 This story involves the release of iodine-131, apparently alone (or else it could related to an accident at a specific source). Notably, Iodine-131 can potentially come from tellurium in a low energy nuclear reaction (with or without W-L theory). The release could be from mishandling spent fuel, or from an unreported accident (Iran and Israel come to mind as countries which would not report it) but the Rossi reactor is not ruled out. In fact, Rossi has a known history with tellurium and since only iodine is seen, it is a curious state of affiars. But, even though this is a possible scenario, and the catalyst in E-Cat could be tellurium, element 52, it is admittedly NOT likely - but nevertheless it should be mentioned, for the sake of future reference if nothing else. Tellurium was considered to be a good catalyst candidate early on, since it forms into 2D layers in a way that seems to mirror the dense hydrogen state - pycno. Topologically protected surface states are the important 2D feature of bismuth telluride. Rossi's long history with bismuth telluride goes back to his years in New Hampshire with Leonardo, and the failed TEG project. In the presence of spillover hydrogen, 'topologically protected surface states' points towards a possible operative mechanism for the E-Cat device. Wiki has an entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_insulator A topological insulator is a material that behaves as a thermal insulator in its interior while permitting the movement of charges on its boundary. In fact bismuth-telluride conducts electricity like a metal but conducts heat poorly - like glass. The internal stress resulting for this contradictory set of physical properties on must be severe. This stress will create nano-cracking, cavity formation, and local pressurization. The material may allow spillover hydrogen to accumulate via mirror charges (Lawandy), and then further densify in nanocavities, which are more like surface nano-pits. Heat is retained deep in the pit but not at the surface, providing a high stress-interface. Tellurium's most stable isotope is 130 - and it is extremely 'neutron rich' so that the addition of a proton would be expected in result in unstable iodine 131. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Apparently not known yet but there are so many possibilities. I also saw recently that Chernobyl is badly in need of a new concrete encasement but no money to do it. I hope the era of power by fission is coming to a close. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jeff Sutton ** ** **Ø **It was intended to be humorous ** ** Yes, there was no doubt about your intent. ** ** But since you were not around vortex (AFAIK) when we were considering tellurium as the Rossi catalyst – then it seems prudent to “air out” this particular detail, so to speak… J ** ** The history of advancement in many fields is littered with people being “right for the wrong reason’… I hope this is not in that category, and admittedly there is little chance that it is. ** ** Nevertheless, we should cover all the bases. ** ** Where did that iodine come from anyway? ** ** Now, if someone did an analysis of prevailing winds in Europe over the last week, and it pointed back to where else, the birthplace of baloney, then that might make the discussion more interesting. ** ** Doubt if there is a connection, but who would have thought the worst problems of Chernobyl would end up in places like Scotland and Finland?*** * ** ** Jones ** **
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Sterling Allan: Arm-in-Arm with Andrea Rossi http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/sterling-allan-arm-in-arm-with-andrea-rossi/ and others The Big Lie Technique of Scammers, Courtesy of Adolf Hitler http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/the-big-lie-technique-of-scammers-courtesy-of-adolf-hitler/ [ Godwin's LAW ... shut down the discussion ] Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msnbc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msnbc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
The lady (Krivit:) doth protest too much, methinks to quote Shakespeareor maybe he was a fraud too? On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msnbc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction? Here is a similar loaded question: Q: Why does Obama refuse to show his birth certificate? A: He did show his birth certificate. This question incorporates a falsehood. Q: Why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction? A: It *has* been run long enough to eliminate this possibility, by a wide margin. Also, you have no reason to think this particular machine can be run for 6 months between charges. Rossi never said that. Your question incorporates two falsehoods. Perhaps the tests Nelson observed did not last long enough, but the 18-hour test in Feb. and Oct. 6 test did. Rossi ran for 4 hours. Anyone glancing at the data can see that the reactor should have fallen to room temperature in 45 min. Anyone can see the heat balance was zero going into the self-sustaining event. There was no stored heat. It is ridiculous to claim there might be some hidden source of chemical fuel that can produce this effect. Even if Rossi were to run the thing for 40 hours or 40 days, I am certain you would demand more. You would still be finding excuses not to believe it. People who are not convinced by this duration will not be convinced by any longer duration or higher power. You will have to wait for some major customer to buy a reactor and then go public. Probably you will not even believe that. You will say that General Electric is conspiring with Rossi to defraud the public. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away which he would control by increasing the cooling flow rate or by reducing the hydrogen pressure. We have not seen any demonstration of automated equipment to do this, so I suspect Rossi is the control mechanism. It would be hard for him to run a continuous test for days (when would he sleep?). OR, he would have to divulge the control technique and train a couple of assistants to man the machine (which I think he also doesn't want to do). -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msn bc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Bob wrote One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. Agreed. I think all logic points to this. I suspect some of the complicated claims to how Rossi is scamming people are beginning to rivalcold fusion itself. Soon Occam's razor will suggest the cold fusion is the simpler solution. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com wrote: One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away which he would control by increasing the cooling flow rate or by reducing the hydrogen pressure. We have not seen any demonstration of automated equipment to do this, so I suspect Rossi is the control mechanism. It would be hard for him to run a continuous test for days (when would he sleep?). OR, he would have to divulge the control technique and train a couple of assistants to man the machine (which I think he also doesn't want to do). -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msn bc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Regarding Rossi, there are obviously many answered questions that remain that could either scientifically verify or refute his extraordinary claims. I don't know whether Rossi is a SCAM artist or whether he is the real deal. Let me repeat that: I DON'T KNOW!!! Granted, I have my suspicions... I suspect Rossi's mysterious eCat technology, flawed it may be, is authentic... this based primarily on the opinions I've read from competent observers who know a few things more than I. Nevertheless, my suspicions could turn out to be wrong. Under the circumstances, the best approach that I can take is simply to wait and see. Keep watching. What concerns me about what Krivit continues to blog about is that I perceive absolutely no wiggle room in the opinion he has arrive at. It would seem that from Krivit's POV, without a shadow of doubt, Rossi is a scam artist extraordinaire. I am not the only individual who has noticed this about how Krivit has been handling the Rossi affair. For Krivit, it would seem that this whole affair is turning into an outright campaign against Rossi and all the rest of the people on the planet he perceives as lining up behind Rossi. It's as if Krivit is saying: It's ME against the rest of the world. It is best to watch from a safe distance. PS: I hope Obama got a token Mars Candy Bar out of the trip. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com wrote: One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away . . . This is what Rossi has said on many occasions. He says he cannot leave the thing, especially in self-sustaining mode. They left it alone for many hours during the 18 hour test in February. It was not self-sustaining. When they first turned on during that test, it briefly went up to much higher power levels, with the output thermocouple registering 40°C. Rossi was reportedly frightened by this. You would have to be crazy not to be frightened by this. I think it was going out of control. In my opinion, back in February Rossi had little control over this reaction. I sure hope he now knows much more about it now. This is one of the reasons I was afraid the thing might explode during the 1 MW reactor test. In the patent, Rossi claims that a large reactor ran for many months unattended in Italy. He listed the address. Several Italian say they saw this machine running, so I suppose it is true. I believe there was considerable input power in this case. Apparently when the input-output ratio is low, the reaction is stable. I have no idea why that should be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
At 02:48 PM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is a similar loaded question: Q: Why does Obama refuse to show his birth certificate? A: He did show his birth certificate. This question incorporates a falsehood. I finally have convergence between my OTHER Conspiracy Theory (with hard-coded google search buttons) and the eCAT !!! AND Krivit invoked Godwin's Law .
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: AND Krivit invoked Godwin's Law . Actually, *you* invoked Godwin's law, a.k.a. *Reductio ad Hitlerum*. Krivit . . . embodied it? Violated it? Triggered it? Not sure what the right verb would be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Your observations concerning Krivit seem to be valid to me as well. I recall his first negative message after his June trip to Rossi's lab. It has continued downhill since then as Krivit has completely lost any sense of balance. It is apparent that he has lost his objectivity and should stop this ridiculous attack if he is to be considered a journalist at all. Could he have an agenda that we are not aware of? Could someone be offering him support as long as he is on the offensive? If Krivit is correct, Rossi has some serious explaining to do. If Krivit is wrong, he is going to be lacking credibility within the LENR family for a very long time. My personal interest is to arrive at the truth in the best manner possible. I am biased toward the ECAT being successful because of the magnitude of the effect it will have upon our future. I can assure you that I will reveal any evidence I uncover that can be reasonably substantiated whether it is supportive of the ECAT or not. Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade Regarding Rossi, there are obviously many answered questions that emain that could either scientifically verify or refute his xtraordinary claims. I don't know whether Rossi is a SCAM artist or whether he is the real eal. Let me repeat that: I DON'T KNOW!!! Granted, I have my uspicions... I suspect Rossi's mysterious eCat technology, flawed it ay be, is authentic... this based primarily on the opinions I've read rom competent observers who know a few things more than I. evertheless, my suspicions could turn out to be wrong. Under the ircumstances, the best approach that I can take is simply to wait and ee. Keep watching. What concerns me about what Krivit continues to blog about is that I erceive absolutely no wiggle room in the opinion he has arrive at. It ould seem that from Krivit's POV, without a shadow of doubt, Rossi is scam artist extraordinaire. I am not the only individual who has oticed this about how Krivit has been handling the Rossi affair. For rivit, it would seem that this whole affair is turning into an utright campaign against Rossi and all the rest of the people on the lanet he perceives as lining up behind Rossi. It's as if Krivit is aying: It's ME against the rest of the world. It is best to watch from a safe distance. PS: I hope Obama got a token Mars Candy Bar out of the trip. Regards teven Vincent Johnson ww.OrionWorks.com ww.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
At 03:38 PM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: AND Krivit invoked Godwin's Law . Actually, you invoked Godwin's law, a.k.a. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Krivit . . . embodied it? Violated it? Triggered it? Not sure what the right verb would be. Krivit started it : The Big Lie Technique of Scammers, Courtesy of Adolf Hitler http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/the-big-lie-technique-of-scammers-courtesy-of-adolf-hitler/ Godwin's a well-neighbour : maybe I'll get a ruling from him.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Hi, Any news from the Witch Doctor? Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Even if Rossi were to run the thing for 40 hours or 40 days, I am certain you would demand more. You would still be finding excuses not to believe it. There may be other reasons not to believe in it but certainly a 40 hour run is more persuasive than a 4 hour one, especially when there is no compelling legitimate reason to stop early. I've made jokes that maybe Rossi has another appointment? Or that his bladder is too small. But I'm sure that's not what it is. As for there being no way to cheat with the experiments Rossi has done so far, how do you know? Do you know every possible way there is to store energy in an 80 kg device? Do you know every possible way there is to bamboozle the instrumentation and the observers? If you don't know for sure EVERY possible way, you can't be sure that one wasn't used. That's why independent experiments are so essential. People who are not convinced by this duration will not be convinced by any longer duration or higher power. You will have to wait for some major customer to buy a reactor and then go public. Probably you will not even believe that. You will say that General Electric is conspiring with Rossi to defraud the public. Longer duration and higher power would make a lot more sense than the anemic and brief tests that we've been subjected to thus far. It would also be helpful if Rossi had not dropped the power density so much. From a small device (what? 10 kg maybe?) providing up to 130 kW (Levi) to an 80 kg one that makes only around 4. Rossi said it was running at 1/3 capacity. Why? And how do we know?And a far better designed and simple test, like the one Levi supposedly did (etc. etc.)-- you know the rest. I suspect that if Rossi sells reactors to any legitimate customers, we will eventually get an independent test that will be convincing to most.But many people are not convinced that Rossi even has or had a customer other than himself. I know little evidence if any that he did other than what he and Engineer F. said (sorry, can't remember the spelling).
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: But many people are not convinced that Rossi even has or had a customer other than himself. I know little evidence if any that he did other than what he and Engineer F. said (sorry, can't remember the spelling). Col. (Ret.) Domenico Fioravanti T
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Col. (Ret.) Domenico Fioravanti Thanks. I hope there is a tough journalist interview with him soon. I doubt that there ever will be.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Col. (Ret.) Domenico Fioravanti Thanks. I hope there is a tough journalist interview with him soon. I doubt that there ever will be. You go, Mare! (But careful, you're running close to your 40 post per minute limit on Vortex ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
You go, Mare! (But careful, you're running close to your 40 post per minute limit on Vortex ;-) Thanks. I'm done. I actually have to work on something else for a living some of the time. Meanwhile, I notice that when NASA came up, the enthusiasts on ecatnews.comstarted talking about banning more skeptics... again. Sure shows how confident they are.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Even if Rossi were to run the thing for 40 hours or 40 days, I am certain you would demand more. You would still be finding excuses not to believe it. There may be other reasons not to believe in it but certainly a 40 hour run is more persuasive than a 4 hour one . . . This is like saying that a gigaton thermonuclear bomb is more convincing than a 20 kt bomb. No, it isn't. Once you exceed the limits of chemistry by a large margin, a larger margin proves nothing. Or, to take a more peaceful example, it is like saying that the quantum levitation shown in this video would be more convincing if the superconducting material was a meter away from the track instead of ~1 cm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA It is definitely levitating. Making it farther from the magnet would not prove anything that is not already proved. . . . especially when there is no compelling legitimate reason to stop early. I've made jokes that maybe Rossi has another appointment? Not a joke. The people observing the tests told me that they had other appointments. They asked him to stop. That is a compelling, legitimate reason. As for there being no way to cheat with the experiments Rossi has done so far, how do you know? The only suggestion you have come up with is a stage magician trick. I know enough about stage magic to know that such a trick could never fool anyone who opens up the device and looks inside. If there are wires or hidden fuel, you would see them. Otherwise it would be genuine supernatural magic. There is no such thing. You have said that someone, somewhere may know of some stage magic method. That assertion cannot be tested or falsified, so it is not meaningful. It is like saying there might be an undiscovered error in Newton's laws. Do you know every possible way there is to store energy in an 80 kg device? Yes, I do. More to the point, so do all physicists and chemists. The limits of chemical energy storage have been well known since the mid-19th century. If you are challenging them you will have to overthrow far more than a few plasma fusion theories that some people claim cold fusion may violate. I know just about everything relevant to this system, and experts who know this in far more detail than I do are certain there is no way to store this much energy in this device. It is not close, or questionable, or marginal. It is not a difference of 20%. It is beyond question. The thing would cool rapidly, reaching room temperature in 45 min., tops, yet it still boiling 4 hours later. That's not close. It might as well be a million hours. How do we know there was no heat storage? We know the specific heat of water and the metals in this device. We know how much the metal weighs. We know there is no invisible concrete that takes up no space and displaces no water. We know that if you store up heat before the test, the reactor would get hot. It would have to be 1000 deg C inside. There is no insulation so perfect that the outside surface would not be quite hot to the touch. When the observers picked the thing up to weight it, they would feel it is hot. The human sense of touch is sensitive and 100% reliable at these temperatures. Do you know every possible way there is to bamboozle the instrumentation and the observers? There is no way to bamboozle the sense of touch. You cannot make a dozen people think that a box at room temperature is radiating heat at 80 deg C. You cannot make it burn someone and cause pain. Prepackaged modern electronic gadgets such as the thermocouple meter cannot be bamboozled either. All you can do with those things by monkeying with them is break them. Besides, one of the observers tested the meter against his own, and found that it works. If you don't know for sure EVERY possible way, you can't be sure that one wasn't used. Yes, I do know EVERY possible way, because this is first-principle, fundamental physics. Any person in the last 100,000 years would know that boiling water in box that is radiating heat must cool down in 4 hours. It is ridiculous to question that. It is absurd to natter on about the placement of the thermocouples when sense of touch alone proves the point. The only possible cause is energy generation, and I do know EVERY possible way to send electric power or chemical fuel into the box: with a wire or tube. There are no wires or tubes. Do you know of any other way to put energy into this system? Longer duration and higher power would make a lot more sense than the anemic and brief tests that we've been subjected to thus far. What the hell is that supposed to mean?!? Those are absurd adjectives in this instance. 4 hours is not brief compared to 40 minutes. Heck, you would know in 10 minutes that it is cooling rapidly. If kilowatts of heat an a large box radiating at 80 deg C is anemic what the heck do you want? A blast furnace? Anemic compared to what? If you think this is
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Maybe they are interested in banning folks that are just there to eat up bandwidth. Who knows? Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past? I tried and can not come up with one, so give it a try. There are many ways to suggest a trick that could, maybe be done. I will grant you this: Rossi has left the possible field open to a lot of tricks. Give one example of an experiment that is fool proof to save me from having to think too hard. I bet the vortex can figure a way to fake any you name. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 10:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade You go, Mare! (But careful, you're running close to your 40 post per minute limit on Vortex ;-) Thanks. I'm done. I actually have to work on something else for a living some of the time. Meanwhile, I notice that when NASA came up, the enthusiasts on ecatnews.com started talking about banning more skeptics... again. Sure shows how confident they are.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past? The one I just cited, from the present, right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA It is definitely levitating. No way that can be stage magic. Here are some other examples from technology, not just benchtop lab experiments. These things produced instant, irrefutable proof that they were real, and anomalous by the standards of the past: Magnetism Storage of electricity in capacitors and batteries. You can feel it. The fact that electricity triggers motion in frog's legs. Guns and artillery Photography The demonstrations of the telegraph, telephone, phonograph, radio, and television. The incandescent light. You could tell it was not light from combustion. The X-ray The fact that x-rays cause biological harm and death. They discovered this by accident soon after the discovery of the x-ray, when they killed a patient. The fact that radium produces heat beyond the limits of chemistry. Airplanes flying above 100 feet or so (beyond ground effect) A nuclear bomb test. Definitely not a chemical reaction -- the scale is much too big from a device of that size. The fact that the ENIAC computed at 300 operations per second and got the right answer -- when it got any answer at all. The fact that any computer is, in fact, computing very rapidly with extraordinary precision compared to a person. The fact that a computer disk actually does hold some amount of data, megabytes or terabytes. I can easily demonstrate the capacity in a way that would convince any mathematically literate person of the last 400 years. The first demonstration of the transistor amplifier producing a sine wave The fact that a laser is nothing like an ordinary beam of light. You can tell at a glance that it does not spread out the way ordinary light does. The fact that penicillin cures many grave, life threatening diseases, including some that were incurable previously. The launch of a rocket. You can see it has reached high altitudes. In vitro fertilization. There is no such thing as an immaculate conception. You can tell when a woman is pregnant and has a baby. The fact that Dolly the sheep was cloned. You could tell by looking she could not have come from her birth mother, and by examination of the DNA that she was cloned. Fleischmann's heat-after-death boil off experiment. Definitive visual proof of heat far beyond the limits of chemistry. I can come up with dozens more. Many breakthroughs are manifestly real, the moment you see them. You do not need any instruments or blank runs. Rossi's 4-hour heat after death event is manifestly real. Like Fleischmann's boil off, it cannot be faked. It is too simple. Some other cold fusion experiments do require instruments, or they are on a small scale, and thus could be faked. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Pick one to have scammed. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past? The one I just cited, from the present, right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA It is definitely levitating. No way that can be stage magic. Here are some other examples from technology, not just benchtop lab experiments. These things produced instant, irrefutable proof that they were real, and anomalous by the standards of the past: Magnetism Storage of electricity in capacitors and batteries. You can feel it. The fact that electricity triggers motion in frog's legs. Guns and artillery Photography The demonstrations of the telegraph, telephone, phonograph, radio, and television. The incandescent light. You could tell it was not light from combustion. The X-ray The fact that x-rays cause biological harm and death. They discovered this by accident soon after the discovery of the x-ray, when they killed a patient. The fact that radium produces heat beyond the limits of chemistry. Airplanes flying above 100 feet or so (beyond ground effect) A nuclear bomb test. Definitely not a chemical reaction -- the scale is much too big from a device of that size. The fact that the ENIAC computed at 300 operations per second and got the right answer -- when it got any answer at all. The fact that any computer is, in fact, computing very rapidly with extraordinary precision compared to a person. The fact that a computer disk actually does hold some amount of data, megabytes or terabytes. I can easily demonstrate the capacity in a way that would convince any mathematically literate person of the last 400 years. The first demonstration of the transistor amplifier producing a sine wave The fact that a laser is nothing like an ordinary beam of light. You can tell at a glance that it does not spread out the way ordinary light does. The fact that penicillin cures many grave, life threatening diseases, including some that were incurable previously. The launch of a rocket. You can see it has reached high altitudes. In vitro fertilization. There is no such thing as an immaculate conception. You can tell when a woman is pregnant and has a baby. The fact that Dolly the sheep was cloned. You could tell by looking she could not have come from her birth mother, and by examination of the DNA that she was cloned. Fleischmann's heat-after-death boil off experiment. Definitive visual proof of heat far beyond the limits of chemistry. I can come up with dozens more. Many breakthroughs are manifestly real, the moment you see them. You do not need any instruments or blank runs. Rossi's 4-hour heat after death event is manifestly real. Like Fleischmann's boil off, it cannot be faked. It is too simple. Some other cold fusion experiments do require instruments, or they are on a small scale, and thus could be faked. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Pick one to have scammed. Please, after you. Pick one yourself -- whichever you consider easiest to scam, and tell us how you would do it. Mind you, when the telegraph and years later the phonograph were demonstrated to Members of Congress, some of them did say the inventors were crazy and these things must be scams, but they did not have any technical or scientific reason to think that. When photographs were first exhibited, a German scientist said they must be fake because they violate the laws of God and German Science. He probably meant that to be the other way around, with German Science being first. (As told by A. C. Clarke.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
I wrote: Pick one to have scammed. Please, after you. Pick one yourself -- whichever you consider easiest to scam, and tell us how you would do it. By the way, I do not mean that it is impossible to make a fake telephone with gutta percha, or a fake x-ray with a pre-arranged photo. I meant that I can set up an irrefutable demonstration, and people did set up such demonstrations. For example, to prove that an x-ray really does penetrate material we cannot see through, you ask the skeptic to assemble some metal objects from his house and put them into a box. Any objects, arranged any way he likes (and perhaps glued down). A fork, a coin, scissors, or what have you. Close the box, bring it to me, I x-ray it and show you what is inside. Anyone who would dispute that would be crazy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
I think it is up to Mary Yugo. She is the one that the question was posed to. I will await her response. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 12:41 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Pick one to have scammed. Please, after you. Pick one yourself -- whichever you consider easiest to scam, and tell us how you would do it. Mind you, when the telegraph and years later the phonograph were demonstrated to Members of Congress, some of them did say the inventors were crazy and these things must be scams, but they did not have any technical or scientific reason to think that. When photographs were first exhibited, a German scientist said they must be fake because they violate the laws of God and German Science. He probably meant that to be the other way around, with German Science being first. (As told by A. C. Clarke.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Jed, I am waiting for Mary to give an example. It is not your question. Just in case someone were to scam your experiment, you have to realize that there are no limits on what is acceptable. You would not be able to set up the final experiment since that is part of the scam. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 1:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade I wrote: Pick one to have scammed. Please, after you. Pick one yourself -- whichever you consider easiest to scam, and tell us how you would do it. By the way, I do not mean that it is impossible to make a fake telephone with gutta percha, or a fake x-ray with a pre-arranged photo. I meant that I can set up an irrefutable demonstration, and people did set up such demonstrations. For example, to prove that an x-ray really does penetrate material we cannot see through, you ask the skeptic to assemble some metal objects from his house and put them into a box. Any objects, arranged any way he likes (and perhaps glued down). A fork, a coin, scissors, or what have you. Close the box, bring it to me, I x-ray it and show you what is inside. Anyone who would dispute that would be crazy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Poor Journalism by Fox News on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-fox-news-on-rossi-story/ Poor Journalism by Physorg on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-physorg-on-rossi-story/ Poor Journalism by Wired U.K. on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-wired-u-k-on-rossi-story/ Gee ... was the MSNBC article OK ?
RE: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
I see Krivit (like everyone else who screams scam) is rather short on detail on how the supposed scam is ACTUALLY supposed to work. A scam where you spend all your own money, sell your house, conduct 5 public demos where no-one notices anything, produce graphs of genius, get professors to agree to be in on the scam, bribe NATO engineers and overnight become the world's best actor, not to mention becoming a master of hiding one's own body language. That's quite a scam he's got going there.It's also ironic how Krivit has disabled comments on his blog thereby denying readers the ability to challenge him. Thats bad journalism in it's own right, the VERY THING he's so eager to point out as a fault with everyone else!Can't Krivit just admit that he's bitter about Rossi calling him a snake and be done with it? Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com Date: Thu, November 10, 2011 11:01 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Poor Journalism by Fox News on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-fox-news-on-rossi-story/; Poor Journalism by Physorg on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-physorg-on-rossi-story/; Poor Journalism by Wired U.K. on Rossi Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/09/poor-journalism-by-wired-u-k-on-rossi-story/; Gee ... was the MSNBC article OK ?
RE: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Krivit seems to have an awful lot of time on his hands to follow other peoples coverage of Rossi. Either this translates to traffic for his blog and advertising revenue from it, he is mounting a personal vendetta of impressive proportions, or he has another source of revenue to support him as he neglects his own work and pursues a negative PR campaign against someone who is not even a competitor. Some of you know him, or have met him. Any other motivations seem plausible? -- Sean
