Re: [Vo]:Tesla adds new meaning to Supercharging
Some people on my forum proposed another idea from LENR strutura difference... The idea is that soon there will be hybrid LENR+Electric vehicles like what LENR-Cars is preparing. One waste is that the cost of such an electric generator is only peak power, thus at night it is a wasted capacity. the idea is thus to plug the car at night, or in the day, not only to charge the car if needed, but to feed the grid if possible. will it be useful ? that is where the smart-grid technology can help. the car will feed the grid at the parking, and be paid for (to pay the maintenance and the effort). the battery could also be used to help the grid, but the cost will be higher... will it be useful ? maybe not at night because the cost of maintenance will be too high, but in the day vars could help the grid to absorb peak demand. with lenr, knowing the cost of solar and wind energy, of storage, there is no doubt there will be no solar or wind generator used beside some niche application (and even, it might be replaced by TEG+LENR). 2013/2/16 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com It is good to remember that when electric vehicles goes into mainstream — around early 2020's, there will be (wireless) solar/wind charging option in every parking lot. Charging option will be free only when there is oversupply of solar and wind power. —Jouni On 15 February 2013 21:13, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/ There are only a half-dozen of these charging stations in the country, and the closest one for me is almost two hours away... but damn ... these vehicles are lust-worthy.
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
I've just seem a TV document on Marie Curie, and really nothing will change. people have the imagination that things get more tolerant, but it is always the same, as explain nicolas taleb in anti-fragile... rewriting the history of LENR will be done afterward, making physicist look competent. 2013/2/16 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: If NASA fails, this will be a black mark. Failure is not treated the same way in LENR as it is in normal science. Beside, anyone who has studied the theory must wonder about the competence at NASA. Honestly, if LENR gets off the ground and gains mainstream acceptance, I see the possibility of it helping to influence the culture of physics in a new, more tolerant direction. Who knows. The current mode of intolerance and haughtiness is not flattering for physics. I think it is ironic in this light that the field can also go in the other direction, towards any number of possibly unfalsifiable avenues of investigation in string theory and multiple universes and so on. Perhaps it is just because these areas of investigation cannot easily be falsified that some physicists are able to carve out a respectable niche there. Most physicists will wonder about the competence at NASA if they pursue any LENR theory. It is only a subset of LENR people that wonder about the competence of NASA's pursuing W-L. I think NASA should have the latitude to keep on staff a few people who entertain oddball ideas; such people can still end up coming up with interesting and useful innovations. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
It was only a matter of time before the conspiracy theorists got into full action… This one is almost believable. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/15/russian-meteor-conspiracy_n_2694031.html Of course, it is the Russian angle and fairly tame. Closer to home, has Rush or Rove found a way to blame it on the prez ? From: Eric Walker David Roberson wrote: The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does not seem likely since both are infrequent. Talk of a miracle in cold fusion; this seems like one in astronomy. I suspect these events only seem infrequent, in two ways. First, because we personally aren't involved in monitoring all of the asteroids, large and small, coming through the local region of the solar system, and if we did, we might lose sleep at night (just a guess). Second, our ability to record such events is improving, and we might have lost a lot of data earlier on when the tracking of events was less systematic and accurate. An interesting challenge would be to independently work out the parameters of a model based on the Poisson distribution to calculate the likelihood and magnitude of similar events in the next few years. Eric
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
But Eric, this is not how experimental studies work. Generally people see what they look for. For example, Swartz has a model he uses to explain what he see and he explains the behavior only in this way. Fleischmann had a model based on Preparata that provided his guidance, which lead to an approach for doing experiments that was based only on the model. I suffer from the same reliance on my model. As a result, no one changes their mind because Nature always supports the model being used. Therefore, it is important to start a study using a model close to the correct one. People who say they will simply do the study and see what happens are not telling the truth. This is not a simple physics problem that has a clear answer. The answer will not be clear. The result will be complex and will make no sense without a model being applied. For example, a person will see a little heat. He will run the experiment again using what appears to be the same material and see nothing. Was the first result error or was the material used the second time not exactly the same as the first time? How do you decide? At this point a model is applied. Which model you use determines what you do next. Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure anyone has a good answer to your question Ed. I do not care what theory they are operating upon at the moment as long as they keep plugging away. That's right -- it should be like Newton's method for finding the roots of a real-valued function. You pick some starting point -- anywhere, really, as long as it is not too far afield -- and then you plug away, Edisonian-like, gradually narrowing down the possibilities without being dogmatic about what has been set aside, since new information may come to light that causes one to reevaluate previous evidence. In this context I don't see much use for hewing to a specific theory when approaching a very challenging problem. Anything is beloved that delivers, even heavy electrons. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
Ed, I suspect that what you describe is a very common occurrence in the experimental science world. We all want some form of support for the process that we use to solve problems, but there are many times that something unexpected shows up which then leads us in an entirely different direction. I know from my experience that I generally begin solving a complex problem by making a series of assumptions based upon my model of the system. As I seek evidence to support the original assumptions I often find unusual behavior that is not consistent with my model. If I pursue the new leads that arise from inconsistencies, additional ones will occur that force me to adjust my original model of the thing, whatever it is. This procedure allows a researcher or problem solver to modify their understanding of the device as they link all the pieces of evidence together. A person must be capable of realizing that what they originally think is important might not turn out to be in the final conclusion and that is pretty much where we are in LENR today. No one can prove that their pet theory is correct at this time and there are a multitude of ideas in contention. The ultimate conclusion may not even be currently up for review , so it is a wise idea for us to keep our minds open to new concepts. Many of us question the WL theory, but it does have its supporters in high places. Perhaps they have lost touch with reality, but there is a tiny chance that we are the ones that need to open our minds and eyes. An example of the flow of problem solving is immediately available in the form of the time domain program I just developed that does a remarkable job of matching the behavior of MFMP Celani cell temperature response with time. I started the analysis by noticing that the temperature versus time behavior appeared to follow an exponential relationship. This was soon found to be over simplified as I was expecting. One small change in ideas followed the next as I reviewed the errors until I realized how to construct the non linear differential equation that explained the system behavior. Then I came to the realization that my curve had the correct shape but was not fitting the data with time as I had hoped. A bright idea hit me that the glass added a delay process as the heat conducted toward the outer surface and the design was completed. I left out a great deal of pain and discovery in this history lesson, but the general idea is that what I ultimately came up with was quite a bit removed from where it began. My best guess is that some of the concepts being applied in our attempt to explain LENR behavior are applicable, but many will not fit into the final model very well. The guys at NASA are attempting a shot gun type of approach. No one knows whether or not unusual behavior will be demonstrated at this time, but I would not be surprised. If they are knowledgeable enough and something new comes to light, we might all get a welcome gift. I have my fingers crossed that at least one of the many cells that they are testing will not match our expectations. 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: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 9:25 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny But Eric, this is not how experimental studies work. Generally people see what they look for. For example, Swartz has a model he uses to explain what he see and he explains the behavior only in this way. Fleischmann had a model based on Preparata that provided his guidance, which lead to an approach for doing experiments that was based only on the model. I suffer from the same reliance on my model. As a result, no one changes their mind because Nature always supports the model being used. Therefore, it is important to start a study using a model close to the correct one. People who say they will simply do the study and see what happens are not telling the truth. This is not a simple physics problem that has a clear answer. The answer will not be clear. The result will be complex and will make no sense without a model being applied. For example, a person will see a little heat. He will run the experiment again using what appears to be the same material and see nothing. Was the first result error or was the material used the second time not exactly the same as the first time? How do you decide? At this point a model is applied. Which model you use determines what you do next. Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure anyone has a good answer to your question Ed. I do not care what theory they are operating upon at the moment as long as they keep plugging away. That's right -- it should be like Newton's method for finding the roots
[Vo]: Asteroid Debris Generation
I am hoping that NASA or some military units have been carefully photographing the asteroid during its close encounter with the Earth. The tidal forces due to the gradient of the gravitational field of the Earth should have disrupted the big rock to some degree unless it is entirely composed of a solid chunk of material. It has been in orbit around the sun for many billions of years so it has undergone uncountable collisions with smaller bodies which have ejected materials with each hit. It seems logical to assume that a small portion of the material ejected in this manner would not have sufficient velocity to escape the gravitational pull of the main body. This dust and other small pebbles should eventually find their way back to the big rock and rest upon its surface. Unless there is a cleaning operation due to solar wind or some other mechanism I would think that the main body of the asteroid would be knee deep in debris. A close encounter to a large mass such as Earth would tend to extract some of this material away from the asteroid and leave a form of dust trail somewhat similar to what happened with the recent Jupiter comet encounter. One near encounter took a single body and converted it into a long string of individual bodies which lead to the final fascinating demonstration. Of course Jupiter is a lot bigger than the Earth, but the process should be the same although in a far smaller model. Has anyone seen any published pictures or papers that support my expectations? Dave
RE: [Vo]:Tesla adds new meaning to Supercharging
I will add also that the LENR generator set in the car might as well provide wasted heat for the building. That does only need a few pipes from the car to the heating system. The LENR generator will follow you and provide all the time our energy needs locally. The Tesla S is the way to go. Its a first step, the next one is put a LENR generator in the Tesla. Thats easy to say, if we could make affordable, replicable, safe, LENR generators Arnaud _ From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: samedi 16 février 2013 09:22 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tesla adds new meaning to Supercharging Some people on my forum proposed another idea from LENR strutura difference... The idea is that soon there will be hybrid LENR+Electric vehicles like what LENR-Cars is preparing. One waste is that the cost of such an electric generator is only peak power, thus at night it is a wasted capacity. the idea is thus to plug the car at night, or in the day, not only to charge the car if needed, but to feed the grid if possible. will it be useful ? that is where the smart-grid technology can help. the car will feed the grid at the parking, and be paid for (to pay the maintenance and the effort). the battery could also be used to help the grid, but the cost will be higher... will it be useful ? maybe not at night because the cost of maintenance will be too high, but in the day vars could help the grid to absorb peak demand. with lenr, knowing the cost of solar and wind energy, of storage, there is no doubt there will be no solar or wind generator used beside some niche application (and even, it might be replaced by TEG+LENR). 2013/2/16 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com It is good to remember that when electric vehicles goes into mainstream around early 2020's, there will be (wireless) solar/wind charging option in every parking lot. Charging option will be free only when there is oversupply of solar and wind power. Jouni On 15 February 2013 21:13, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/ There are only a half-dozen of these charging stations in the country, and the closest one for me is almost two hours away... but damn ... these vehicles are lust-worthy.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
A link to the book by Thomas Nagel mentioned by Sheldrake in his talk. http://www.amazon.ca/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1361040962sr=8-1 Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False Thomas Nagel Book Description Publication Date: Sep 6 2012 In Mind and Cosmos Thomas Nagel argues that the widely accepted world view of materialist naturalism is untenable. The mind-body problem cannot be confined to the relation between animal minds and animal bodies. If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. No such explanation is available, and the physical sciences, including molecular biology, cannot be expected to provide one. The book explores these problems through a general treatment of the obstacles to reductionism, with more specific application to the phenomena of consciousness, cognition, and value. The conclusion is that physics cannot be the theory of everything. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False is a 2012 book by Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University. Overview In the book, Nagel argues that the materialist version of evolutionary biology is unable to account for the existence of mind and consciousness, and is therefore at best incomplete. He writes that mind is a basic aspect of nature, and that any philosophy of nature that cannot account for it is fundamentally misguided.[1] He argues that the standard physico-chemical reductionist account of the emergence of life – that it emerged out of a series of accidents, acted upon by the mechanism of natural selection — flies in the face of common sense.[2] Nagel's position is that principles of an entirely different kind may account for the emergence of life, and in particular conscious life, and that those principles may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic. He stresses that his argument is not a religious one (he is an atheist), and that it is not based on the theory of intelligent design (ID), though he also writes that ID proponents such as Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and David Berlinski do not deserve the scorn with which their ideas have been met by the overwhelming majority of the scientific establishment.[3] Harry
[Vo]:uncertainty-principle-measured-macro-scale
http://www.livescience.com/27137-uncertainty-principle-measured-macro-scale.html Mark Goldes Co-Founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
Dave, let me explain my situation more clearly. I studied the effect for 23 years, have done hundreds of experiments, and from this information arrive at a model that shows how all the observations are related though the same mechanism. This mechanism must occur in cracks. So, I design an experiment to create cracks on purpose. As a result, 4 samples make radiation that can only result from a nuclear reaction - problem solved. But, I attempt to repeat the success and fail. The radiation is real, the cracks are real, and the idea is consistent with all other behavior. So why is the effect not replicated? If the theory is correct, the cracks I'm now making are not the right size. If the theory is wrong, I have no idea why the experiment did not work again. If I had no theory, I would not have even tried to make cracks. CF is too complex to just try any idea that comes to mind because the result cannot be interpreted without a model. Let's assume NASA gets an effect from one of their small samples. Did this result because W-L is correct, which is what they will assume, or did it result because unknown to them the proper cracks were made. You see, the next experiment will depend on which theory is believed. If they believe W-L, they will look for neutrons. If they believe me they will look for cracks. If they are smart, they will look for both, but I'm not confident this will happen. On Feb 16, 2013, at 9:53 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I suspect that what you describe is a very common occurrence in the experimental science world. We all want some form of support for the process that we use to solve problems, but there are many times that something unexpected shows up which then leads us in an entirely different direction. I know from my experience that I generally begin solving a complex problem by making a series of assumptions based upon my model of the system. As I seek evidence to support the original assumptions I often find unusual behavior that is not consistent with my model. If I pursue the new leads that arise from inconsistencies, additional ones will occur that force me to adjust my original model of the thing, whatever it is. This procedure allows a researcher or problem solver to modify their understanding of the device as they link all the pieces of evidence together. A person must be capable of realizing that what they originally think is important might not turn out to be in the final conclusion and that is pretty much where we are in LENR today. No one can prove that their pet theory is correct at this time and there are a multitude of ideas in contention. The ultimate conclusion may not even be currently up for review , so it is a wise idea for us to keep our minds open to new concepts. Many of us question the WL theory, but it does have its supporters in high places. Perhaps they have lost touch with reality, but there is a tiny chance that we are the ones that need to open our minds and eyes. An example of the flow of problem solving is immediately available in the form of the time domain program I just developed that does a remarkable job of matching the behavior of MFMP Celani cell temperature response with time. I started the analysis by noticing that the temperature versus time behavior appeared to follow an exponential relationship. This was soon found to be over simplified as I was expecting. One small change in ideas followed the next as I reviewed the errors until I realized how to construct the non linear differential equation that explained the system behavior. Then I came to the realization that my curve had the correct shape but was not fitting the data with time as I had hoped. A bright idea hit me that the glass added a delay process as the heat conducted toward the outer surface and the design was completed. I left out a great deal of pain and discovery in this history lesson, but the general idea is that what I ultimately came up with was quite a bit removed from where it began. Calibration of a calorimeter is well know and very simple. I have not been following the effort well enough to know if the rules have been followed. Nevertheless, if the level of power that Celani claimed was produced, there should be no doubt. As a result, we are in an ambiguous situation. Is the calorimeter flawed or is the sample dead? I suspect we will never know. People will keep looking for heat until they get bored or run out of money. Unfortunately, a wire of this kind is doomed to failure because, according to my theory, the required crack structure will change as the wire is handled and used. This form of material is not stable and will always fail eventually, hopefully not before some excess is detected with a reliable calorimeter. Ed My best guess is that some of the concepts being applied in our
[Vo]:OT: Lead poisoning could really be A cause of violent crime
Yes, lead poisoning could really be a cause of violent crime It seems crazy, but the evidence about lead is stacking up. Behind crimes that have destroyed so many lives, is there a much greater crime? At first it seemed preposterous. The hypothesis was so exotic that I laughed. The rise and fall of violent crime during the second half of the 20th century and first years of the 21st were caused, it proposed, not by changes in policing or imprisonment, single parenthood, recession, crack cocaine or the legalisation of abortion, but mainly by … lead. I don't mean bullets. The crime waves that afflicted many parts of the world and then, against all predictions, collapsed, were ascribed, in an article published by Mother Jones last week, to the rise and fall in the use of lead-based paint and leaded petrol. It's ridiculous – until you see the evidence. Studies between cities, states and nations show that the rise and fall in crime follows, with a roughly 20-year lag, the rise and fall in the exposure of infants to trace quantities of lead. But all that gives us is correlation: an association that could be coincidental. The Mother Jones article, which is based on several scientific papers, claimed causation. more... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/violent-crime-lead-poisoning-british-export Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: Lead poisoning could really be A cause of violent crime
There has been good evidence of this for many years. There is a horrifying example of an apartment complex built over a highway in the 1950s, exposed to the fumes of the cars with leaded gasoline. Large number of children raised there became violent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Lead poisoning could really be A cause of violent crime
I posted this after hearing a radio show about the research. That showed focused on the possible causes of the decline of crime in New York city during the 1990s. Mayor Rudy Giuliani's no-broken window policy is usually cited as the cause, but the researcher argues it may simply have be a delayed effect of the declining lead level which began in the Mid 1970s. Harry On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There has been good evidence of this for many years. There is a horrifying example of an apartment complex built over a highway in the 1950s, exposed to the fumes of the cars with leaded gasoline. Large number of children raised there became violent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:uncertainty-principle-measured-macro-scale
On 02/16/2013 05:18 PM, Mark Goldes wrote: http://www.livescience.com/27137-uncertainty-principle-measured-macro-scale.html The reporter was wrong: it's not the Uncertainty Principle which is being demonstrated, but the Observer Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29 Craig
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Is it because you use temperature values on the exterior of the cell and they don't when calculating excess power? harry On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not what I wanted to see Harry. I was expecting to calculate plenty of excess power right up until I ran the program. Another guy performed a correction upon the data that was being used by the MFMP group where he compensated for the pressure drop occurring as the hydrogen escapes the envelop and came up with results that match mine. I hope we are both wrong and they can test that by adding back additional hydrogen pressure. So far that has not been done, so we all await patiently. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 10:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result My questions, concerns and speculations about method arise because I find it baffling that your estimate and MFMP team's estimate of excess Power can be so different. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Obvious question: Was the vector correlated with that of the earth approaching asteroid? No, they were almost perpendicular. Pure and delightful coincidence. NASA's blog stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments : Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees. What is your cite, Terry?
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: The fact that both of these events happened so close together just does not seem likely since both are infrequent. Talk of a miracle in cold fusion; this seems like one in astronomy. I suspect these events only seem infrequent Careful, Eric. We're actually getting, just in the last few yearshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=dVzR0kzklRE#t=187s, enough data to falsify claims like yours now.
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
My calculations continue to suggest that very little power is being generated by the cell. You are correct in assuming that others are calculating excess power while I do not is due to the monitor point that they are using, but recent measurements tend to add support to my method. The cells were cooled down and extra hydrogen added to bring the pressure approximately back to where it was during the calibration runs. When the systems were powered up again I determined roughly the same null result, but the other monitor points suggest that the significant excess power they were measuring has gone away. I was not surprised by this result. The worst problem that my technique has to overcome is caused by variation in the density of the hydrogen gas. I believe this is due to the fact that lower density hydrogen leads to less heat being conducted from the hot wires. The wires rise in temperature as a result, leading to additional IR radiation. Some of the direct wire IR escapes capture in the glass envelop and is not detected. This causes the outer glass monitor, the one I rely upon, to cool down and I therefore calculate less power. The magnitude of the problem is enough to be a concern, but appears to generate much less error for me than for people using one of the internal sensors. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 1:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Is it because you use temperature values on the exterior of the cell and they don't when calculating excess power? harry On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not what I wanted to see Harry. I was expecting to calculate plenty of excess power right up until I ran the program. Another guy performed a correction upon the data that was being used by the MFMP group where he compensated for the pressure drop occurring as the hydrogen escapes the envelop and came up with results that match mine. I hope we are both wrong and they can test that by adding back additional hydrogen pressure. So far that has not been done, so we all await patiently. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 10:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result My questions, concerns and speculations about method arise because I find it baffling that your estimate and MFMP team's estimate of excess Power can be so different. Harry
