On Jul 20, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17481
July eclipse is best chance to look for gravity anomaly
It would seem to me a great way to study this would be to look at
satellite gathered radar data for the ocean during and soon after the
On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:50 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 03:21 PM 7/16/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
The emission rate for alphas in CF experiments is very low. Some
CR-39 exposures have only a few dozen per mm^2, for a two week
experiment.
Those wouldn't be the experiments with the
From: Steven Krivit
I note your non-response to name your anonymous advisors with whom you
discussed and dismissed the Piantelli-Focardi results. I note your
non-response to present the specific scientific critique of your anonymous
advisors.
I am sure that there is no innuendo here from
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the
Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book.
Your significant and long-standing contributions to LENR, in both time and
money, are of the highest order - and should always be recognized...
... and
Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the
Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book.
Your significant and long-standing contributions to LENR, in both time and
money, are of the highest order - and should always
The Mills situation is a bit more complex than you note, Stephen.
Hydrinos are not the only result of the Mills theory. He has created
a new model for atomic interaction and a new model for calculating
many fundamental constants including the ionization energy of most
elements. His model
I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the Ni-CF research is clearly
stated in my book.
Jed,
Is this the view to which you refer, from Cold Fusion and the Future?
Steve
***
There is one more twist to this problem. Cold fusion can transmute the
cathode metal
Jones Beene wrote:
... and your agenda of minimalizing the importance of Mills' theory to LENR
is also known and not secret.
As the British would say, this is utter bullocks. I have NO OPINION
about Mills' theory, or any theory. I do not understand theory, and I
could not care less about
These people never learn. See:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327173.400-the-science-that-dare-not-speak-its-name.html
QUOTE:
With hindsight, it's clear that the cold fusion a pair of
electrochemists thought they had stumbled upon 20 years ago will not
deliver the energy miracle it
Edmund Storms wrote:
The Mills situation is a bit more complex than you note, Stephen.
Hydrinos are not the only result of the Mills theory. He has created a
new model for atomic interaction and a new model for calculating many
fundamental constants including the ionization energy of most
Steven Krivit wrote:
Jed,
Is this the view to which you refer, from Cold Fusion and the Future?
. . .
Fortunately, there are good indications that cold fusion works well
with abundant metals including nickel and titanium, although
experiments with these materials have not yet been widely
On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
HH: Possibly a better way to go is to use oxygen to burn the
power plant fuel and recycle 100% of the CO2 through algae. Then run
the power plant on the algae, its oil, cellulose and all. No coal
necessary at all.
I wrote:
The cold fusion reaction has been seen with palladium, titanium,
nickel, and with some superconducting ceramics. (Sticking my neck
out for Oriani and Mizuno.)
And Biberian! He reported patriotic French proton conductors: blue,
white and red.
- Jed
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Ptolemaic cosmology predicted many things correctly, after all.
But the
moons of Jupiter shot it down none the
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
they *succeeded* in their replication, *and* they looked at the published
data, *and* they found a mundane explanation for the apparent excess heat,
*and* they showed that the mundane explanation fully accounted for the
results of their
Let me clear up some potential confusion about the Britz bibliography.
Steve Krivt wrote here:
. . . I am also surprised that you did not see Britz's review of the
Focardi-Piantelli response.
And here:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml
Dieter Britz, a longtime
Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
Whoops -- You lifted the following quote from its context: You snipped
the part where I said, The claim Jed made was *not* that they failed to
replicate; it was that...
Consequently, you've made it sound like I
Stephen
I should not have jumped on you so hard. Sorry.
But please, your opinion is valuable, and this RD is valuable - so read
Steve's article, and the Piantelli papers, and let us know what you think -
not what someone else thinks you should think.
Jones
Jones Beene wrote:
The CERN groups response is really a joke in my opinion, let alone
disproof. They admit up front that they lack critical information from the
Piantelli-Focardi paper. Perhaps these were essential details which were
responsible for a failure to replicate anything.
They
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:07:14 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
They should wake up and realize that the second
approach could employ a lot more people in a lot less dangerous
environment.
[snip]
I suspect that they prefer employing fewer people; it costs less.
Regards,
Jed,
The original thread has splintered; one into planet Mills, the other into
planet Britz. The Britz issue is an incidental side-issue. I think we are
complete with our specific discussion of the CERN replication attempt of
the Piantelli-Focardi work...thanks for your critical thoughts on
Steven Krivit wrote:
Based on what I read in your book, you generally accept that LENR
works with nickel but you have lingering doubts because of the low
sampling rate.
Correct. As far as I know there have been only a few replications.
Also, I do not know of any high heat, or high output to
Jones Beene wrote:
It really is as simple as this: Radioactivity = Credibility.
Transmutation = Credibility.
Credibility to scientists. Who needs 'em? Most of them are bought and
paid for by the DoE. As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever
you pay them to believe.
Excess Heat =
Jed,
Thanks again for your thorough reply. I understand your perspective now.
Heat, heat, heat. That's what it's all about. Heat Energy Useful
Application Sorely Need by Society. I get it.
Switching threads now once again
I have not examined the other claims because frankly, I only
On Jul 21, 2009, at 1:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:07:14
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
They should wake up and realize that the second
approach could employ a lot more people in a lot less dangerous
environment.
[snip]
I suspect that
25 matches
Mail list logo
