Jed wrote about the US's wind potential. You Americans, particularly the
right-wingers, ought to stop any obstructive tactics right now or your country
will end up as a second rate power in the low carbon economy of the future.
What China has been doing has been put forward as an excuse to do
I was thinking about catalytic action inside a Casimir cavity vs an individual
atom of catalyst. According to
Moddel Assessment of proposed electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy
extraction methods http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Moddel_VacExtrac.pdf
“In the case of the Lamb shift the
Nick Palmer wrote:
China has now surpassed the US in renewables and is growing
installation at an incredible rate.
http://greeneconomypost.com/greening-china-surpass-america-4782.htm
This columnist seems alarmed by the fact that China is moving ahead.
It seems to me that is cause for
From: Roarty, Francis X
*
* I was thinking about catalytic action inside a Casimir cavity vs. an
individual atom of catalyst. According to Moddel
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Moddel_VacExtrac.pdf Assessment of
proposed electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy extraction methods In
On 03/30/2010 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
If they [China] were moving ahead rapidly in cold fusion I would be thrilled.
Actually, they may be, since they are paying for Arata's work, and
reportedly replicating it back in China.
Yow! That's wild! Can you provide more info on that --
At 02:56 PM 3/29/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Which is, of course, brilliant. What is the context? This argument
practically would take care of itself, all it would take is clear
exposition of it. Would anyone defend it? If I'm correct, that
argument depended on the
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:22 Jones Beene said
Moddel is looking at this situation with blinders on. There are several ways
to get excess heat from hydrogen via Casimir cavities that have come up here
periodically for discussion, aside from variations on the fractional
hydrogen theme. The Lamb
On 03/30/2010 11:20 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
This came up a few years ago as a possible explanation to the Moller
MAHG which was claimed to have a gigantic COP 20 until Naudin’s silly
measurement error was discovered by George Holz. BTW – side note - to
his discredit, JLN has never
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If they [China] were moving ahead rapidly in cold fusion I would
be thrilled.
Actually, they may be, since they are paying for Arata's work, and
reportedly replicating it back in China.
Yow! That's wild! Can you provide more info on that -- particularly on
the
Edison's Idea
Factory to Ignite 2 Industrial Revolutions? Privately-Funded Hot Fusion Program
Aims At 2010 Energy Break-Even
Posted on : 2010-03-30
Anticipating net energy in 2010 or 2011, Energy Made Cleanly CTO Matthew R.
Wood plans to aggressively minimize commercialization delays
At 03:30 PM 3/29/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In an examination of arguments, all arguments should be presented
in such a way that those who believe the argument would say, Yes,
that's what we believe.
I quote the skeptics verbatim. What they are saying is not
Stephen,
Unfortunately he never showed actual real time volts and amps going in,
so it's anybody's guess how true the RMS numbers from the Fluke 123
really are (unless you've run your own tests on that particular meter).
Sticking the label true RMS on something is a lot easier than making
it
On 03/30/2010 01:53 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen,
Unfortunately he never showed actual real time volts and amps going in,
so it's anybody's guess how true the RMS numbers from the Fluke 123
really are (unless you've run your own tests on that particular meter).
Sticking the label true
A bit ambitious as yet. Premature, probably.
This is hot fusion, by the way. Different approach, in theory much
more practical for small devices.
Practicality appears unconfirmed. That's the first step.
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/category/C30/
History is at
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
Do you by any chance have a URL?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aH-gen
Look for messages in 2005-6 from George, Dennis Cravens, Terry and one Dutch
guy. Forget Frolov, as he was part of the problem.
Here is the present gifnet site where they
Any good electronics guy should be able to build his own analog power
measurement device fairly cheaply these days, and interface to
computer A/D if useful too. There are numerous Analog Devices chips
available. If high frequency transients are important then a 4
quadrant analog multiply
On 03/30/2010 03:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
Do you by any chance have a URL?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aH-gen
Thanks; I will check that out. (In fact I think you already posted that
link, but I didn't realize what it was.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The article was deleted from mainspace, article space.
The article was userfied at my request. Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd/Cold_fusion_controversy
You can see the article history at
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
If JLN was reading peak amps and dividing by 20 to get RMS amps, then he
was off by a factor of about 4.5. Square output with a 5% duty cycle
has an RMS value of 1/sqrt(20) times the peak value. [snip] But neither of
these scenarios produces
To answer this question first:
Do you
have a problem with it based on the data ?
So far I haven't seen anything that looked bogus in any of the data, and
that's strange.
I looked through all the messages from late 2005 through the present on
aH-gen, and found nothing which pointed up errors
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
This refers to Miles, but Miles is not mentioned by name and not
referenced in the index.
Right. Miles is in the 1993 index, ref to pages 243 and 244, which
are in the epilogue. On p. 243, Huizenga says he already mentioned
Miles on pages 135 and 212. The paper
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
That's certainly true -- it looks suspicious. But again, it's not
conclusive, and it doesn't point to any specific error.
Thinking back on it, there was never a smoking gun or specific error IIRC,
but the most convincing thing now, in
Steve Krivit sent me the following message. He told me he has cut me
off with the Delete Before Read feature, so there is no point to
responding to him. If his mysterious friend (Mitchell Swartz, I'll
bet) communicates with him again, I suggest you tell him to buy the
book How to Lie with
To reiterate, the cheap trick I referred to was removing the bottom
of the graph (the zero line) and the numbers from the axes. Krivit
says that was simplified so people can get the larger picture. It
doesn't look simplified to me but anyway, don't ever do that, for any reason.
That's what I
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/aH-gen/messages
Wasn't that your group, Jones? Go there and see if you have a gold crown.
Terry
the larger picture being, what we want them to think
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
To reiterate, the cheap trick I referred to was removing the bottom of the
graph (the zero line) and the numbers from the axes. Krivit says that was
simplified so
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:22:45 Jones Beene said
[Quote]When the spin flips, a photon is always emitted or absorbed, and a
tiny
amount of heat is transferred. At high pressure, the flipping could happen
at rate measured in terahertz (blackbody kinetic rate) so even a tiny heat
difference (micro-eV)
I attended a global warming conference today at the University of
Pittsburgh. I was not convinced of the reality of it, is global warming real
or is
it not real. We will it have a bad effect or will some warming be good.
So what if the ice melts, ice is good for nothing.
China wants
I don't see anything wrong with the way Krivit presented the data in order to
make his point.
Harry
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 5:46:42 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
Steve Krivit sent me the following
It's all a Fluke.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=138
This is going to take some work. Krivit is claiming contradiction.
Headline: «
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=138McKubre Recalibrates Cold Fusion Data
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=139EPRI, Passell Contradict McKubre
Michael McKubre, of
At 09:30 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with the way Krivit presented the data in
order to make his point.
Well, I have not examined this particular claim of Krivit's.
Apparently I should. Generally speaking, though, if you are trying to
make a point that someone altered
At 09:30 PM 3/30/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with the way Krivit presented the data in
order to make his point.
As I just mentioned in another post, I haven't studied his point in
this case. Perhaps you'd take a look and explain it. I'm tired of
being the only one
33 matches
Mail list logo
