A new short course on cold fusion science and technology sponsored by
the Engineering and Computer Science departments at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology will be held in January 2012 during
institute’s Independent Activities Period.
Am 19.11.2011 07:48, schrieb David Roberson:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi has given out
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Here I do not agree that the ECAT is filled 11 times during the test. I
obtain 3 grams/ECAT / 1.7539 grams/seconds = 17105 seconds/ECAT. This
is 4.75 hours to empty one cat. That is only a bit more than one refill
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have a report that is in the hands of Ny Teknik that shows my
calculations for the October test. The results come very close to what
Rossi claims for his 3 core ECAT that is used in the 1 MW plant.
I'm not
From Randell Mills yahoo group
The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst. Nickel has
an affinity to bind to CO. At temperatures below 700 degrees Celsius heating
nickel first releases CO and around 400 degrees Celsius a dominant reaction
causes 2CO to form C and CO2 on an
On Nov 19, 2011, at 1:24 AM, David ledin wrote:
From Randell Mills yahoo group
The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst.
Nickel has
an affinity to bind to CO. At temperatures below 700 degrees
Celsius heating
nickel first releases CO and around 400 degrees
Hi,
Sofar I've been thinking that the fusion process of Nickel and Hydrogen
itself is the important part that takes place in Rossi's reactor.
However after reading some enlighting stuff at Robin's page about
hydrinos ( http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Hydrinos_explained.html ) I
think I know
Nickel may not be necessary at all'
No : Nickel or similar metal with high lattice enthalpy like Alkali
metal halides is necessary.
See these papers from Rowan university
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanChemSummer2009Report.pdf
Hi,
On 19-11-2011 13:31, David ledin wrote:
Nickel may not be necessary at all'
What about 63Cu == 64Zn or 65Cu == 66Zn ?
Kind regards,
MoB
Hi,
On 19-11-2011 13:31, David ledin wrote:
Nickel may not be necessary at all'
I wonder if anyone has tried the following binding-agents?
39K (93.260%) == 40Ca
41K ( 6.730%) == 42Ca
44Ca ( 2.086%) == 45Sc == 46Ti
50Ti ( 5.180%) == 51V == 52Cr
54Cr ( 2.365%) == 55Mn == 56Fe
58Fe ( 0.282%)
This patent (like several others in LENR) resulted in litigation and has
been abandoned - IIRC - essentially for nonpayment of fees. IOW there is no
government issue.
This means that it goes into the public domain - not that later inventors
can prevail if they essentially try to cover the same
Lastly some recent results obtained with [Brian] Ahern's nano-powders are in
abstracts Mt-01, Mt-02 and GL-02 at the compilation of the Feb-2011
ICCF-16 16th Intl Conf on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Srinivasaniccfthinte.pdf
pages 101,103, 17
Mt-01
From Dr. Randell mills patent
A method of preparation of the catalytic material of the present
invention of catalytic systems that hinge on the transfer of an
electron from a cation to another capable of producing energy holes
for shrinking hydrogen atoms includes the steps of:
Dissolving ionic
Joshua, when I look at the pictures of the 1 MW module, I see an awful
lot of pipes, tubes, valves and connections. Now pipes etc. are quite
removed from my trade, so maybe it is obvious to you how everything is
connected, but it seems to me that you are making lots of assumptions
on how the
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Here I do not agree that the ECAT is filled 11 times during the test. I obtain
3 grams/ECAT / 1.7539 grams/seconds = 17105 seconds/ECAT. This is 4.75
hours to empty one cat. That is only a bit more than one
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have a report that is in the hands of Ny Teknik that shows my calculations
for the October test. The results come very close to what Rossi claims for his
3 core ECAT that is used in the 1 MW plant.
I'm not
David,
It should be noted that Mills had NO claim for a gas-phase reactor prior to
the Rossi announcement !
First off, the prior art is covered by the Thermacore experiments of the
mid-nineties. Secondly, most of what you mention below was an alteration by
BLP of a prior application, in which
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, steam or not steam, this thing produces lots of excess
energy. This argument hasn't been properly countered by skeptics.
Fire bricks/hot graphite/molten lead/batteries/garden gnomes etc.
are not allowable
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If you claim the heating elements are submerged, then I completely agree
that if the steam were dry, fluctuations in power in the ecats would be
accommodated by fluctuations in output flow rate, and variations in the
Thanks, Jones
Too bad the patent system is such a winner-take-all contraption.
I am reminded of a lecture on patent law that I attended years ago
expecting the patent lawyer speaking to explain the virtues of the patent
system - instead he lampooned it and went through a list of debacles he
had
The physicists behind hydrofusion.com (and ecat.com) are not _just_ physicists.
As I noted in an earlier thread, Sandstrom is a VP at DBRS since 2007,
a financial rating service in Canada. Think Moody's, but a little
smaller. Not a lot smaller, though:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
so maybe it is obvious to you how everything is
connected, but it seems to me that you are making lots of assumptions
on how the structure of the system is.
No. I make very few assumptions. I am simply using the data
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Had MIT correctly reported their
positive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy
society.
You want someone to blame because your hopes of cold fusion have not been
realized. But pinning it on MIT is
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi
plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some
storage, but his claim was based on dry steam, which he can insist he
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi
plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some
Mary, I think that you are advocating a blank run because you do not have
necessary understanding how to do accurate calorimetry and more
importantly, how to use simplest possible methods to calibrate the
calorimetry.
(Lots of people such as Levi and Lewan had insufficient understanding for
doing
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi
plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some
You have missed the point entirely. The *experimental* results using
carbon arcs in water produced a COP of 7. No half baked theory was
involved. No metals were involved. Hydrinos were possibly not even
involved.
Of course the results could have been bogus. That is why I used the
Ooops... Correction to my last post: a prosecution would be a criminal
action and I was describing a civil law suit. I can see both civil suits
(if there are investors or even customers) and criminal prosecution as
possible if the E-cat turns out to be fraudulent rather than real.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary, I think that you are advocating a blank run because you do not have
necessary understanding how to do accurate calorimetry and more
importantly, how to use simplest possible methods to calibrate the
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
You have missed the point entirely. The *experimental* results using
carbon arcs in water produced a COP of 7. No half baked theory was
involved. No metals were involved. Hydrinos were possibly not even
Boiler Efficiency and Steam Quality: The Challenge of Creating Quality Steam
Using Existing Boiler Efficiencies
http://www.nationalboard.org/index.aspx?pageID=164ID=235
...
Lower Pressure Increases Entrainment
As a steam bubble rises through the water and reaches the surface, it
-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
I wonder if Ahern will give a theory on the absence of energetic nuclear
products in his Dec 7 talk.
Lou - Methinks this will be a short spur-of-the-moment talk ... not a
complete presentation, possibly with a few slides. But Ahern will
Note : They are mainly talking about boilers with much higher pressures than
the eCat.
Mary wrote: »I have performed and published highly reliable results of
research involving calorimetry.»
But not with ecat. It is difficult to have understanding what is relevant
and what is not. In steam calorimetry there is only one necessary variable
relevant to be measured (i.e. steam
I dont think this is relevant.
Rossi himself has said somewhere in a video or interview, there might be
an error of 5% in the steam calculation.
If we assume steam was 50% wet, which is physically impossible, then we
still get a COP of about 3.
50% wet is rain and not fog or steam.
So the
In reply to Man on Bridges's message of Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:04:38 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
Hi,
On 19-11-2011 13:31, David ledin wrote:
Nickel may not be necessary at all'
I wonder if anyone has tried the following binding-agents?
39K (93.260%) == 40Ca
You might also consider
23Na (100%) == 24Mg
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
After 1989, PF got tens of millions to fund their research;
You are so unaware of the history of LENR.
T
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it does for some of the public demos but it hardly takes him off the
hook for the claim of a 35 kW heater that ran for a year
. . .
You shall see evidence of this . . . SOON! :-)
If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same
precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how
water can _theoreticallly_ survive as a liquid drop while surrounded
by steam which is above the boiling point. In other words, the theory
that the same water
The aquafuel patent number is 5,435,274, according to Infinite
Energy Vol. 2, No. 9, 1996, which had a good article about it and a
copy of the patent.
The front cover of that issue of IE contains an impressive picture of
an arc in an aquarium bubbling up enough of the gas that it is
I posted here.
http://www.ecatresearch.org/showthread.php?85-A-general-sketch-of-part-of-the-reactor
.
This is a new forum, so I would appreciate if you post there.
Thanks!
Am 19.11.2011 22:56, schrieb Harry Veeder:
If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same
precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how
water can _theoreticallly_ survive as a liquid drop while surrounded
by steam which is above the boiling point. In
On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I posted here.
http://www.ecatresearch.org/showthread.php?85-A-general-sketch-of-
part-of-the-reactor.
This is a new forum, so I would appreciate if you post there.
Thanks!
No thanks. This is rude, directing conversation away from this
Since this place is so crowded with trolls and my email box is so filled
with MY and JC bulshit, I don`t mind posting a link to somewhere else.
About the error there, I will talk to the admin.
2011/11/19 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:
If we assume steam was 50% wet, which is physically impossible, then we
still get a COP of about 3.
50% wet is rain and not fog or steam.
In 2-phase flow, steam (or vapor) quality is simply the ratio of the mass
of
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
After 1989, PF got tens of millions to fund their research;
You are so unaware of the history of LENR.
You mean PF didn't receive lots of
2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
I really do want to see them. I have no axe to grind and as hard as it
is for some believers to believe, I have never worked for an energy
producing industry or company.
Rossy says, MY says, and the pot calls the kettle black, etc...
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
Am 19.11.2011 22:56, schrieb Harry Veeder:
If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same
precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how
water can _theoreticallly_ survive as
Am 19.11.2011 23:19, schrieb Joshua Cude:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
If we assume steam was 50% wet, which is physically impossible,
then we still get a COP of about 3.
50% wet is rain and not fog
Am 19.11.2011 23:29, schrieb Harry Veeder:
Prof Chang has observed it and he says it is routinely observed but it
is just ignored because it doesn't fit theory. Harry
I have repeatedly tested Thermoelements over boiling water and have
never observed it.
When he doesnt accept steam theory why
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
I really do want to see them. I have no axe to grind and as hard as it
is for some believers to believe, I have never worked for an energy
producing industry or company.
In small bubbles or small drops, surface tension is dominant.
Pressure changes, so the PVT equilibrium can be different.
I have a link somewhere for this I'm not sure if I put in my tube boiler
analysis.
And for the life of me, I can't remember if small drops grow or shrink in a
No, you are just polite. But you are extremely repetitve. You make
request that know will not be fullfilled, at least according to your
tastes, you do that all the time. That repetition is annoying.
And, why wouldn`t I think that you work for an energy company? You say that
Rossi has all signs of
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:
But even at steam quality of 0% most of the experiments would give a COP
1, because the input energy measured was not enough to heat the water to
100° and definitely there was boiling and some steam observed.
In
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 14:21 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote:
'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long
sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs
time that could not possibly have come from some other place -- say by
three orders of magnitude or so (nuclear
The energy necessary to create a surface big enough to surround all atoms
of a liquid is the enthalpy of boiling. This is a recent result and is
pretty accurate for a large range of substances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization#Physical_model_for_vaporization
.
So, at boiling
Am 19.11.2011 23:58, schrieb Alan Fletcher:
In small bubbles or small drops, surface tension is dominant.
This is true.
There is an interesting early scientific work about water electricity
from the physicist Lenard who later got the nobel price.
He points out that evaporating water is
Peter wrote: » Thank you for pointing this out, it is probably correct and
I was in error.»
No, what Joshua said does not even resemble physics. If his explanation
would be even remotely truthful, kettle boilers would be impossible,
because all water would escape from tea pots as low quality
Am 20.11.2011 00:37, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
Peter wrote: » Thank you for pointing this out, it is probably correct
and I was in error.»
No, what Joshua said does not even resemble physics. If his
explanation would be even remotely truthful, kettle boilers would be
impossible, because all
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you are just polite. But you are extremely repetitve. You make
request that know will not be fullfilled, at least according to your
tastes, you do that all the time. That repetition is annoying.
Perhaps but I
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 14:21 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote:
'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long
sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs
time that could not possibly
People pay attention to whatever you write because you are confrontational
with other people point of view. Thats all. But your arguments are
repetitive, but people get the bait, trying to make you shut up by also
being confrontational. It is just all noise.
2011/11/19 Mary Yugo
Peter, I do not see how it would be possible, because if water is atomized
(it would cause also loud sound instead of observed gentle boiling sound),
it cannot climb the chimney, because atomized water quickly returns into
liquid in the closed container if velocity is low. This is also the reason
I started by the papers from some guys with the surname Chubb. These are
theoretical papers, mostly. But it made LENR make a little bit more of
sense to me since it makes it the same as hot fusion, but in disguise. That
is, LENR is just an electromagnetic pinch, which causes atoms to collide at
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Peter wrote: » Thank you for pointing this out, it is probably correct and
I was in error.»
No, what Joshua said does not even resemble physics. If his explanation
would be even remotely truthful, kettle boilers
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
And if there is low quality steam, then steam velocity cannot be high
because water mass flow was low, few gramms per second. So no matter how
you look it, low quality steam is physical impossibility with ecat.
That means that part does not leave.
2011/11/19 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
This again. Please explain what would happen if the flow rate was 675
kg/L, and a power of say 235 kW was delivered to the ecats (electrically,
or whatever). In that case, there is only enough power to vaporize
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
I started by the papers from some guys with the surname Chubb. These are
theoretical papers, mostly. But it made LENR make a little bit more of
sense to me since it makes it the same as hot fusion, but in disguise. That
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
That means that part does not leave.
That could work for a while, but eventually the ecat would fill up. Anyway,
Rossi always uses the input flow rate to calculate the output power, so he
is assuming it is coming out.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
People pay attention to whatever you write because you are confrontational
with other people point of view. Thats all. But your arguments are
repetitive, but people get the bait, trying to make you shut up by also
Joshua wrote: »In the 2-phase literature, this mixture of percolated hot
water and steam is still called low-quality steam.»
Outside Krivit-inspired Rossi discussion I have never heard this kind of
definition for steam quality. Also wikipaedia does not recognize such
definition. Coffee makers do
Am 20.11.2011 01:01, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
Peter, I do not see how it would be possible, because if water is
atomized (it would cause also loud sound instead of observed gentle
boiling sound), it cannot climb the chimney, because atomized water
quickly returns into liquid in the closed
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained,
well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could
not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of
I am sorry, there is no such paper. So, like you say in the other, it will
be an endless cycle of discussion.
Anyway, as I see it, the objection to LENR is of theoretical basis, since
it would apparently require that nearly all nuclear physics would have to
be abandoned to conform with
Given that 99.999% of certainty flukes are seen, - are commonly seen in
experiments with complicated statistical analysis,
2011/11/19 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
I am sorry, there is no such paper. So, like you say in the other, it will
be an endless cycle of discussion.
Anyway, as I
From: Mary Yugo
I'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained,
well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could
not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of
magnitude or so (nuclear processes could most likely produce
Not if the output is actually much higher than the input!
2011/11/19 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:
That means that part does not leave.
That could work for a while, but eventually the ecat would fill up.
Am 20.11.2011 01:38, schrieb Daniel Rocha:
Not if the output is actually much higher than the input!
He doesnt measure the output mass flow.
He always assumes this equals the input mass flow and it is all vaporized.
From this assumption he calculates the output energy.
If this assumption is
It is correct because otherwise, it would leave the pipe without bubbling!
:)
2011/11/19 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
Am 20.11.2011 01:38, schrieb Daniel Rocha:
Not if the output is actually much higher than the input!
He doesnt measure the output mass flow.
He always assumes this
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
After 1989, PF got tens of millions to fund their research;
You are so unaware of the history of LENR.
I'll start with Dr. Mallove's conclusion:
They all wear pullovers and jackets.
Even Kullander and Essen weared them an look at Rossi what he wears.
Cant he pay the heating?
Why doesnt he simply heat it with ecats?
;-)
SCNR, Peter
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
A fair question is why a top notch high tech company (the people who
invented the heat pipe) did not follow up on this work, all the way to a
commercial product.
Jones,
Do you think Randell will ever bang his head
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:
Am 20.11.2011 01:01, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
Rossi says he has heated a room and he intends to sell the ecat for
heating applications.
So why doesnt he simply demonstrate this? The waterflow and delta_t is
easily
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:
Why doesnt he simply heat it with ecats?
Brilliant question. Kidding aside, when I saw all those people bundled up
in their heavy winter clothes, my first thought was Where's that 35 kW
E-cat when you need one?
Jed says people who he trusts saw it. If there is still people talking
about LENR, well, thats part of his efforts, so he knows more people and
has more contacts than Rossi can controls. Or do you think he is lying?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
Date:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
From: Mary Yugo
I'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained,
well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could
not possibly have come from some other place -- say by
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's the amazing part of the whole story: Rossi never had to bother with
making E-cats or Ottoman cats or a megawatt plant to prove his device
works. All he had to do was to take the scientists and reporters with some
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
wrote:
Why doesnt he simply heat it with ecats?
Brilliant question. Kidding aside, when I saw all those people bundled up
in their heavy winter
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
A fair question is why a top notch high tech company (the people who
invented the heat pipe) did not follow up on this work, all the way to a
commercial product.
Some of that history of that can be found in the Vortex
Suppose I can do it, just like Rossi claims. I dont want to have to leave
home nor have to heat tons of water. What should I do?
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed says people who he trusts saw it. If there is still people talking
about LENR, well, thats part of his efforts, so he knows more people and
has more contacts than Rossi can controls. Or do you think he is lying?
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
After 1989, PF got tens of millions to fund their research;
You are so unaware of the history of LENR.
For those who are really interested in the
Yeah, yeah, I know all that. Please, you dont need to say that all the time.
2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
BTW, that's a typical scammer tactic too-- they can never show you their
last successful device because they took it apart to reuse the components
or they're working on a
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Did anyone notice they kept the doors open so that they cold connect
to the ancillary devices? If not, take a look at Mat's vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lOYlFyotXk
Another thing: Rossi said he kept the
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose I can do it, just like Rossi claims. I dont want to have to leave
home nor have to heat tons of water. What should I do?
Lomax had a really great idea: sell a kit whereby anyone could verify
it at home. Better
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed says people who he trusts saw it. If there is still people talking
about LENR, well, thats part of his efforts, so he knows more people and has
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Suppose I can do it, just like Rossi claims. I dont want to have to leave
home nor have to heat tons of water. What should I do?
Lomax had a
Sell, how?
2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Suppose I can do it, just like Rossi claims. I dont want to have to
leave
home nor
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
People have asked why the AP reporter, Peter Svensson, who attended the
megawatt test never wrote a story. He still has not done one and it now
looks as if he won't unless something new persuades him to.
He tweeted about
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
