Ed, Nothing I've said here makes any reference to the topic of LENR. It is entirely possible that LENR is real and Rossi is a fraud.
John ________________________________ From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dead. It will never be a practical source of energy in its present form. I'm not the only person who has come to this conclusion. Nevertheless, as long as money is spent on this method, a large self interest is supported to reject CF and to continue funding HF. That is the reality of the world. As for questioning Rossi, this needs to be done. However, it can be done while accepting the reality of the LENR effect. The only unknown is whether Rossi is using LENR to make energy. I believe he is and with increasing success. I wish him well. Nevertheless, it does not make any difference to me and to anything I hold dear whether he is a fraud or not. He will succeed or fail based on his own efforts. I'm much more interested in the fraud the financial industry applies to the housing market. Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:47 AM, John Milstone wrote: Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. > >There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly "dead" phase on his >3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually >"live" (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly >the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently >hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). > >Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit "hot" fusion (or other >branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. > >John > > > > > > >________________________________ > From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM >Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test > > > >I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I >hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. > >I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be >overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas >which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress >as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the >time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. > >So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always >find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far >suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. >This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess >we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread >throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs >of mankind. > >Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test > > >Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > From: John Milstone > > > > For starters, CERN isn't selling "franchises" to the Higgs Boson. > CERN > doesn't rely on "secret" customers and "secret" experts to validate > their > work. Etc, etc. > > > > > > This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than > that. > > > > But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big > Science > projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. > > > > The physics establishment is essentially selling "franchises" to > every > overpaid PhD and "yes-man" techie on the large staffs - who would be > fired, > if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. > > > > CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects > with > routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! > > > > That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an > elite group > to "tow the company line" ... That is far more despicable than Rossi > struggling for investment capital. > > <winmail.dat> > >
