Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Muon radiation is not immediately deadly. We all have muons passing through our bodies produced by cosmic rays. These muons contribute to 12% more or less of the total background radiation loading that exist in the background. [image: Inline image 1] Muons hardly react with the elements in our

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

ions under oath? > > If not, why not? > > The ERV is moot without his sworn testimony under fear of jepoardy. > > -- > *From:* Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, April 3, 2017 10:15 AM > *To:* VORTEX > *Subject:

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

:15 AM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics. Jed, you suggest anyone reading the Penon report will have a Rothwellian negative revelation of nothingness. I may ask all our colleagues from this relatively inactive forum,: do you agree with Jed, or on the contrary they have the int

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Jed, you suggest anyone reading the Penon report will have a Rothwellian negative revelation of nothingness. I may ask all our colleagues from this relatively inactive forum,: do you agree with Jed, or on the contrary they have the intuition of a successful test? The data presented in the report

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vBB8SgHazs 2017-04-03 0:05 GMT-03:00 Che : > > > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > As an ideologue, remember to alway keep your feet planted firmly on the > solid foundation of realism. > > > >

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Axil Axil wrote: > If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce >>> tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation exposure. >>> >> >> If that were true, I would be dead. >> > I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

pril 2, 2017 9:23 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics. Brian, So your pledge not to reply to my posts didn't last long. I would have thought even you would know what a pyramid scheme was. AA On 4/2/2017 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern wrote: Rossi kindled interest in a s

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Once again - mistaken identity. I made no such pledge. From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 9:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics. Brian, So your pledge not to reply to my posts didn'

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

*Monasticism or monkhood is the purest form of communism and forms the basis of a spiritual way of life in which one renounces worldly pursuits and the evils of society to devote oneself fully to spiritual work.* *Monastic life plays an important role in many Christian churches, especially in the

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > As an ideologue, remember to alway keep your feet planted firmly on the solid foundation of realism. Frankly, I'll take an ideological stance over crass, money-grubbing commercialism, any day. Look where that's got us.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like Rossi has. On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> LENR produces energy by ripping apart matter into subatomic particles >> thereby

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Axil Axil wrote: > LENR produces energy by ripping apart matter into subatomic particles > thereby producing radiation loading that is proportional to the heat > produced. > No, it is not proportional. Radiation is seldom detected, and when it is, it is not proportional;

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

! *From:* Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics. On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wro

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

As an *ideologue*, remember to alway keep your feet planted firmly on the solid foundation of realism. Be aware that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Most beleive that LENR is rooted in miracles, but only spirituality is rooted in miracles and miracles are just not part of this world. A

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

gmail.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics. > > > > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-th

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff! From: Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics. On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield &l

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

In case you don't know spanish: THREE SAD TROTSKIERS HAMERED STONES IN A GULAG Three Sad Trotskyists They ended up in a gulag for betraying each other. For the mistake made in following Leon Trotsky Coming to the following conclusion: TROTSTKY !! Damn Menshevik opposed to Lenin and Marxism

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Che, this is a present for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD8WwCd7E14

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Is this what we are all supposed to understand, now -- or is this just your considered speculative opinion? On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > @Che > > Your expectations about how LENR will evolve is almost universally held > but unfortunately incorrect.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:39 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Che, > Have you ever done anything apart from bitch about others failings? Well. > do tell us. > Stop being so predictably defensive and just answer the questions which MOST people will no doubt be asking --

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Che, Have you ever done anything apart from bitch about others failings? Well. do tell us. AA On 4/2/2017 4:38 PM, Che wrote: On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: See

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

@Che Your expectations about how LENR will evolve is almost universally held but unfortunately incorrect. LENR produces energy by ripping apart matter into subatomic particles thereby producing radiation loading that is proportional to the heat produced. If LENR produces tons of energy in the

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/ > Like it or not, Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has. > Where's the BEEF?? Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..? (Where's

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/ Like it or not, Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has. AA On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote: Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on vortex-L? At the very least, his proprietary secrecy

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on vortex-L? At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal. On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > It has been evident for years that Rossi has been

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

of conservative arts does not foster change, which LENR will cause IMHO.  Bob Cook        From: Axil Axil Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 6:21 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.  LENR will redefine a goodly amount of our current science. Unfortunately because of this new par

RE: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

not foster change, which LENR will cause IMHO. Bob Cook From: Axil Axil Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 6:21 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics. LENR will redefine a goodly amount of our current science. Unfortunately because of this new paradigm in science, LENR is very

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Axil, I suppose that the paper you referenced could be right but their explanation is so lousy I don't know. I know what a soliton is but a half soliton sounds like clapping with one hand. It is reminiscent of string theory. You are right is saying "Unfortunately because of this new paradigm

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

LENR will redefine a goodly amount of our current science. Unfortunately because of this new paradigm in science, LENR is very esoteric. To support my assertion, this following reference shows that the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) quasiparticle produces a monopole magnetic field.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

He didn't seem to display 2017-04-01 22:20 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha : > Useless aggressiveness. It's not impossible, it is just that he seem to > display this kind of knowledge before. So, working with a specialist, did > good to him. He seemed to answer in a more casual way

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Useless aggressiveness. It's not impossible, it is just that he seem to display this kind of knowledge before. So, working with a specialist, did good to him. He seemed to answer in a more casual way about some nuclear phenomena than before. 2017-04-01 21:43 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Axil, So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly. I don't know and don't have the time to investigate those esoteric theories well enough to understand if they are right. As far as I know, no one has ever demonstrated a magnetic monopole but some talk about them as real. The proof is

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Partly true. A lot of your professors probably went to school about that time. I went to college before that. I suppose it is impossible for you to consider that one could keep up to date in a subject if motivated to do so. In passing. General Relativity was discovered 1905 - 1915. AA

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to support monopole flux lines. The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field (almost a monopole formated magnetic field). This SmCo5 type

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

I mean, not after the theory of neutrinos was conceived in the standard model. 2017-04-01 19:42 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha : > That's philosophy of relativity. And that's from the 70's, not long after > it was inventive. Moreover, you don't need to know particle physics to >

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

That's philosophy of relativity. And that's from the 70's, not long after it was inventive. Moreover, you don't need to know particle physics to study relativity. 2017-04-01 16:39 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield : > Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity. I have

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Axil, I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller particles. They seem to be more a matter of the individual's belief than pinned down by experiment. Let me know when someone /proves/ the existence of a magnetic monopole. AA On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak force produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the effects of how those forces function. The strong and the weak force produce the pion, muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But these

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity. I have no reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for many years. AA On 4/1/2017 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem to forget that I side with Rossi

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH "evidences". 2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield : > Why be so snarky? You have no clue when Rossi learnt that. Jumping to >

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Why be so snarky? You have no clue when Rossi learnt that. Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility. AA On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle physics. He probably learned about

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.