Alain,
Your linked piece set up a straw man. I have been around too long and
seen to much of the world jump on board the latest consensus. With LENR
the evidence that is works is sufficient to think it does. That can't
be said for individuals like Rossi and Mills - yet. I don't know for
color blind in a sea of red flags
It seems some consider that a place wher you can debate is a place where
the enemy have control, especially if he raises a mass of clear evidence
that are very very annoying.
LENR community have to clean it's glasses, like APS have to.
I view post modernism as a sick joke, expressed by generally meaningless
sentences. Why Puckrose would waste so many words writing about it is a
puzzle. Making astroturf has a purpose even if it is evil and for greed.
AA
On 3/29/2017 4:38 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Maybe this is because of
Maybe this is because of the French
https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/
I have the subtle impression some of us live in an information bubble...
Is it me?
2017-03-29 18:14 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield
It seems that this forum with Beene, Jed Rothwell et al are doing a
pretty good job of "astroturfing"
https://youtu.be/-bYAQ-ZZtEU (Thanks Sifferkoll)
See also.
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/why-is-it-important-for-dardenindustrial-heat-to-take-control-of-the-lenr-forum/
AA
On
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> For anyone needing a smile (and don't we all?) an amazing mystery image of
> the reinvented-inventor has appeared on lenr-forum.com ...
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1532-17504250-10154451
>
Beene,
What makes you think that is Rossi?
Or do you just lap up fake news?
AA
On 3/28/2017 3:43 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
For anyone needing a smile (and don't we all?) an amazing mystery
image of the reinvented-inventor has appeared on lenr-forum.com ...
For anyone needing a smile (and don't we all?) an amazing mystery image
of the reinvented-inventor has appeared on lenr-forum.com ...
https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1532-17504250-10154451685095794-8147171188661115195-o-jpg/
It's early for jury consultants, but the "Redford look" is in
Beene,
You don't get to order me not to comment.
As I said, it it probably better for you to insult those who are not
here to answer you. Otherwise they might show up your "palpable ignorance,"
AA
On 3/28/2017 12:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
a.ashfield wrote:
I confirm that I am not being
a.ashfield wrote:
I confirm that I am not being paid by anybody. If you think my
English is the same as Rossi's you need your head examined.
Enough of this nonsense. How about this - I refrain from comment on your
posts and you don't comment on mine...
Beene,
I confirm that I am not being paid by anybody. If you think my English
is the same as Rossi's you need your head examined.
I have not said I KNOW if the E-Cat works, despite your claim. I have
consistently said "Wait and see." II think it probably does work.
Unlike you I don't
bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
I concluded some time ago that Ashfield is not being paid by Rossi and
is commenting in a manner that is well meaning, independent and
without any kind of compensation, be it egotistical gratification or
otherwise.
OK, he is not being paid - I will accept
keeps
the gas cool.”
This is consistent with my understanding of how CFL’s work.
Bob Cook
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Ashfield's ignorance of basic facts here is palpable.
Either he
---
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is >3500C. As it runs without any input
power why do you not think it generates any (excess)
by
division by zero.
*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
If it was true, he could openl
--
*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
obtained by division
by zero.
*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
It has never b
but I did
not comment on capacitors.
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 9:48 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
N
I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi and Godes, but I did not
comment on capacitors.
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped to
I still thinks they will reach 500 degrees months before 3000 degrees. I
have got a lot of respect for getting that thing up to 3000.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:00 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
> PEVs are pocket change in a game of this magnitude. Time is of the
> essence. If
PEVs are pocket change in a game of this magnitude. Time is of the
essence. If they were going to have trouble with a controller, that
would still happen.
AA
On 3/27/2017 6:44 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>> That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to having
.
*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.
If it was true, he could openly demon
>> That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to having
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.
I believe that they would not risk damaging the photovoltaics with a bad
controller and spend quite some time to make it robust and verified, why not
/rewards
calculations are obtained by division by zero.
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
It has never been independently ob
[mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 10:50 AM
To: Bob Higgins; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Bob—
Mills and Rossi do not hold a candle to the hype made by the hot fusion
community over the years and the golden eggs they have
Stefan,
"I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when they
close the system reliably and not when they manage to get the
photovoltaics functioning which is logical."
That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to having
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to
As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to close the
reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water bath
calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after just a
short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and difficulties so
this step
Bob—
Mills and Rossi do not hold a candle to the hype made by the hot fusion
community over the years and the golden eggs they have accumulated.
Bob Cook
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones— I assume you lump Rossi’s one-month Lugano test in with your definition
of scam-built “half-truths” tests. We will see.
Bob Cook.
Funny you should mention "half-truth" Bob, since it is not
Bob,
" If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time
period (at least twelve hours). He should describe the experiment in
detail, and provide data and analysis."
I doubt he has any incentive to
Bib,
Wow! you guys are harsh! I think Mills should be given the benefit of the
doubt. He has raised plenty of money & a lot of due diligence has been
done over the years. Why should he invite competition by proving anything?
Especially with the US Patent office problems.
At my age I don't
I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even
1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The one quick bomb calorimetry
demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was
not published on it. If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should
.@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is >3500C. As it runs without any input power
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?
AA
On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM
Jones,
I wonder if you are confused by the rating of a CFL being 5000C. The
argon in a CFL is not nearly completely ionized, it is a gas discharge,
but not a full plasma. Being fully ionized is not necessary for the CLF
gas, which is merely there to hold the mercury that emits the UV
bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones—I assume you lump Rossi’s one-month Lugano test in with your
definition of scam-built “half-truths” tests.We will see.
Bob Cook.
Funny you should mention "half-truth" Bob, since it is not quite half...
47% actually.
I support the conclusion of Bob
allenging.
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net><mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on th
Jones—
I assume you lump Rossi’s one-month Lugano test in with your definition of
scam-built “half-truths” tests.
We will see.
Bob Cook.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 6:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi
a.ashfield wrote:
...Supposedly the plasma is >3500C.
A plasma at 3500C is commonplace and found in every house - but almost
meaningless in terms of energy content... yet typical of Mills' genius
at deception. The plasma in a common 5 watt CFL can be >6000C. Electrons
in a plasma can be
ing.
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would
you not thi
As for "non-radiation" of dense hydrogen, according to Mayer the binding
energy of the electron in dense hydrogen is around 3.7 keV. A single
x-ray of this energy is emitted on densification, which is contrary to
Mills view of multiple steps.
Once radiated, of course, the dense hydrogen then
They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is challenging.
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart fro
Hi Robin,
*Sorry to have mis-associated the credit for this observation!* It is a
good one.
Bob
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:47 PM, wrote:
> In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:33:46 -0600:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >The predicted properties of the hydrino or
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:33:46 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state hydrogen
>suggest that it will be really hard to detect. According to Meulenberg,
>these states lack sufficient angular momentum to have a photon
and failed the investment stream would cease.
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Er
ease.
>
> --
> *From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
>
> Eric,
> I don't feel expert enough to pass jud
and failed the investment stream would cease.
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass jud
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement. I think that is the
point. Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds whether
Mills is a genius or delusional. That he can come up with values for
particles that are more accurate than from QM and that his program can
show
be laying platinum, iridium or osmium eggs, as golden
eggs become cheaper by the dozen.
Bob Cook
From: a.ashfield
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 2:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics. I have
> yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by
> them.
>
Did you take a look at the link I sent? Can you help us to
To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics. I
have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories
highlighted by them.
Rossi had it right years ago when he stated the skeptics will never
believe an experiment but only the sale of working commercial units.
apparent charge,
however.
Bob Cook
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 9:26 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
There is also the possibility of one or more of the S orbital electrons of the
larger parent atom being taken
Eric Walker wrote:
The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory
of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy I guess I'm open
to BrLP having some experimental phenomenon that keeps them going.
But in that case I wonder why they would publish the several volumes
The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory of
Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy, and I have a hard time not
concluding that this is other than intentional. I had my suspicions from
the start, but they were more than borne out when we actually looked at one
of
Bob Higgins wrote: I just can't imagine a hydrino being able to share
an electronic state with another atom because the hydrino's electron is
so tightly bound to the hydrino nucleus - not an ordinary valence bond
for sure.
... a premise for this is extreme magnetic binding
In a high
There is also the possibility of one or more of the S orbital electrons of
the larger parent atom being taken into a sub-ground hydrino state. In
which case, each of the electrons in such a state would screen a proton and
make those protons appear like neutrons. For example, say one of the S
Bob Higgins wrote:
The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state
hydrogen suggest that it will be really hard to detect... It must be
detected by proxy. Like detecting the neutrino, detection of the
hydrino will require new, inventive techniques
Bob, I generally agree
The predicted properties of the hydrino or any sub-ground-state hydrogen
suggest that it will be really hard to detect. According to Meulenberg,
these states lack sufficient angular momentum to have a photon
transaction. Thus, the hydrino hydrogen would not have telltale absorption
spectra of
57 matches
Mail list logo