Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence. There is none. Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a witch doctor to lead the discussion. The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of excess

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Brian's words are very true. The amount of experimental based wisdom found here is very rare indeed while there is a super abundance of pundiprophecy, aka bullshit. Alas this is not a matter of witch doctors who often had some basis in observational experimental results they work from, rather what

[Vo]:Santilli "neutrons"

Of interest: A video which purports to show neutrons being created from arcing through hydrogen gas This seems to fit into the concept of dense hydrogen masquerading as a virtual neutron...

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Brian Ahern wrote: Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in > a witch doctor to lead the discussion. > Martin Fleischmann and others suggested that the hydrogen in a highly loaded palladium hydride might be superconducting. Cryogenic

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I do not consider it is proper to classifyl Bremsstrahlung radiation as gamma radiation. Gammas are associated with nuclear transitions as a result of a change of potential energy of ta nucleus to kinetic energy of a photon IMHO. You may be right about EM radiation being given off during

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Russ— I agree. But, on the other hand the 5 folks who did the Lugano testing may be FOS as Brian suggests.  FRC Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Russ George Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 6:06 AM To:

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I wrote: > I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose because > it would be difficult to test for. > Difficult because, presumably, in the cathode only microscopic domains of nuclear-active spots superconduct. Not the whole cathode. I think that finding a tiny amount of

[Vo]:Santilli "neutrons"

The trouble with these type of experiments is that it is extremely difficult to prove that electronic measurement of neutrons is valid in the presence of the "mini-EMP" arc pulses. A much better test for neutrons would be to use the BubbleTech (non-electronic) neutron detectors and show bubbles

Re: [Vo]:Santilli "neutrons"

There are many reasons to be skeptical of Santilli. He does use a variety of neutron detection devices, however. Whatever he is making looks like neutrons. This press release makes one think that he could have something valid this time.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I mean by the mainstream relativists, "they" have got it wrong when "they" teach it On Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:58, ROGER ANDERTON wrote: all based on misunderstanding relativity due to translation errors as I shall point out in my next physics talks.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > >> This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold >> fusion' as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up >> in a dead-end -- where

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

That's the sort of thing they muddle up; they say that then go on to start talking about warp spacetime, empty space having the properties of a medium and faster than light (FTL) et al. On Monday, 17 July 2017, 23:27, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > We shoud not be talking about 'cold fusion'. We should be talking about > proton decay. > I *totally* disagree. 'Cold Fusion' is clearly a term with mucho popularizing potential... and most importantly: **it is NOT all that

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

We shoud not be talking about 'cold fusion'. We should be talking about proton decay. On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Che wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Brian Ahern wrote: > > > > > > Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Che wrote: > This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold fusion' > as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up in a > dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..? > The results are not a bit

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

all based on misunderstanding relativity due to translation errors as I shall point out in my next physics talks. On Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:55, Kevin O'Malley wrote: On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:   Bremsstrahlung is

Re: [Vo]:Santilli "neutrons"

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/06/05/ > 1008093/0/en/Thunder-Energies-Receives-Down-Payment-on- > Equipment-Producing-a-Directional-Neutron-Flux-and- > Predicts-Profitability-for-its-Construction.html >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote: Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of a charged > particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of > light in the medium. Velocity greater than C? I thought there was nothing that could

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Brian Ahern wrote: > > > Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence. There is none. > > Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a witch doctor to lead the discussion. > >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On 7/17/17, Brian Ahern wrote: > > The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of > excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform. > ***What about the NANOR? And also, what about those 153 peer reviewed replications of

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Kevin— C is a constant and is the speed of light in empty space. Light also propagates in various media at a speed always below C. Particles may move at a higher velocity than light in a medium, but not in empty space—all this is standard physics today. Bob Cook From: Kevin

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

My MS thesis showed the SC in PdD and PdH in 1975. It works every time at 11K and 9K respectively. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:25 AM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled Brian Ahern

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I agree with your assessment. I failed to exceed 200 milliwatts. That was my hero result from the EPRI Study in 2012 From: Russ George Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden