That sounds about right! SCAM!
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/
According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A.
Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy
Any idea if anyone has received the entire NASA LENR presentation? I've been
checking their website
(http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm) for some time, and it
looked promising:
Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere
consistently showed
That is quite a hit at Rossi's claims, since NASA believes that chemical
reactions could not be ruled out.
But it's interesting that they didn't point out other problems, such vapor
problems and energy COP. The question is: they just didn't bother trying to
figure that out because it was an
It should be noted, that Rossi has shown them (NASA) more evidency than
they got from Piantelli.
And if they really had success with own experiments in sustained
reactions, then it is not understandable why they need Piantelli Rossi.
Do they possibly play a secret service type
On 11-11-10 03:41 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
It should be noted, that Rossi has shown them (NASA) more evidency
than they got from Piantelli.
And if they really had success with own experiments in sustained
reactions, then it is not understandable why they need Piantelli Rossi.
It's not at
...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has
never proved his claim
That is quite a hit at Rossi's claims, since NASA believes that chemical
reactions could not be ruled out
At 11:41 AM 11/10/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/
At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center,
Nelson explained that
Rossi would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with
a
Am 10.11.2011 21:55, schrieb David Roberson:
It is not reasonable to draw the conclusion that NASA believes that a
chemical process might be used within Rossi's device. They are merely
pointing out that it would take a very long time to absolutely rule
out that possibility.
One must
to be accessed.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has
never proved his claim
It should be noted, that Rossi has
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The entire empty volume of a shipping container? Since the energy
produced is N * the number of modules, the TIME should be the SAME as
a single eCat at the same power.
Well said.
Eh? I'm getting not to trust those NASA engineers. Are you sure they
didn't mix
Why did Krivit only release one slide? What did the others slides say?
I requested a nasa FOIA request for the all of the slides. But if
anyone knows Michael Larsen's and can request the slides, that might
be faster.
- Brad
On 11-11-10 04:32 PM, ecat builder wrote:
Why did Krivit only release one slide?
Personally I wouldn't trust Krivit as far as I could throw Rossi.
My immediate jump-to suspicion is that he released exactly as much as
would support his case, and nothing more.
What did the others
Hi,
On 10-11-2011 20:59, Dusty wrote:
That sounds about right! SCAM!
While cleaning up my SPAM folder I stumbled across the following email
of a month ago.
It seems that spammers have found Rossi as a way to earn money as well.
Kind regards,
MoB
==
Return-Path: @unicredit.org
-
On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Dusty wrote:
That sounds about right! SCAM!
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/
According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A.
Nelson, which New
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The entire empty volume of a shipping container? Since the energy
produced is N * the number of modules, the TIME should be the SAME as a
single eCat at the same power.
Well said.
Indeed
Might be their motivation is neither technical nor scientifical but
political?
A serious motivation could be to protect their own knowledge and research.
Are you talking about NASA? How would that work? What is it they are
protecting? How does what they say about Rossi protect anything? If
16 matches
Mail list logo
