[Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful
Greetings Vortex: More Gibbs Garbage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/16/cold-fusion-nasa-says-nothing-useful/ Gibb is not useful. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful
Well, I have to agree with Gibbs, at least in the title. He said that NASA didn't say anything useful and not that cold fusion is useless 2012/1/17 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Greetings Vortex: More Gibbs Garbage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/16/cold-fusion-nasa-says-nothing-useful/ Gibb is not useful. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful
This depends on how you classify the statement. If you expected it to help in the Rossi case, sure, it's not useful. But this was not NASA intentions. In the other case, where they are promoting LENR, this is tremendously helpful / useful. Therefore, I think, Gibbs headline is misleading and therefore not useful at all. Wolf Well, I have to agree with Gibbs, at least in the title. He said that NASA didn't say anything useful and not that cold fusion is useless 2012/1/17 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com Greetings Vortex: More Gibbs Garbage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/16/cold-fusion-nasa-says-nothing-useful/ Gibb is not useful. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful
I think the question here is WHY? Why release a video saying LENR is looking good as a powerful replacement for conventional fossil fuels, then when questioned about it, Zawodny tells everyone, that it's not useful and that he's sceptical about it. Seriously, WTF is going on at NASA? -Original Message- From: Ron Kita [mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2012 1:57 AM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful Greetings Vortex: More Gibbs Garbage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/16/cold-fusion-nasa-says-nothi ng-useful/ Gibb is not useful. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful
At 01:12 PM 1/17/2012, *** Craig Brown *** wrote: I think the question here is WHY? Why release a video saying LENR is looking good as a powerful replacement for conventional fossil fuels, then when questioned about it, Zawodny tells everyone, that it's not useful and that he's sceptical about it. Seriously, WTF is going on at NASA? You need to re-read Zawodny's blog : http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/ a) They're required to publicize any patent, and a layman's video is one way of doing it. b) Zawodny says that he believes there IS credible evidence for LENR c) Zawodny says that he has NOT seen credible scientific evidence for any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable **commercial** device producing useful amounts of net energy (and then clarifies what he means by scientific evidence -- and I think everyone here agrees that Rossi's tests didn't amount to that, and that Defkalion have showed nothing.) It's Rossi (and Defkalion) he's skeptical of. d) The subject heading is a mis-statement of what Gibbs said (ie that NASA's statement added nothing useful). Neither Zawodny or Gibbs said that LENR couldn't be useful.
Re: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful
I wish 60 Minutes would update their story on CF. It's been enough time to see where all the promising research of the old program has gotten. And I'd love to see them approach Rossi and Defkalion. In my estimation, that would be absolutely hilarious. Ever see the number Dateline NBC did on Dennis Lee, Jeff Otto and their idiotic scam injecting on-board-generated hydrogen into cars and claiming doubling of mileage figures? Video and transcripts of the Lee HHO car runs on water story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29899191/ns/dateline_nbc-the_hansen_files_with_chris_hansen/t/fast-money-car-device-sellers-scheme-unravels/#.TxYa0YHW5ls 60 Minutes on CF here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n from 2009.
Re: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:12 PM 1/17/2012, *** Craig Brown *** wrote: I think the question here is WHY? Why release a video saying LENR is looking good as a powerful replacement for conventional fossil fuels, then when questioned about it, Zawodny tells everyone, that it's not useful and that he's sceptical about it. Seriously, WTF is going on at NASA? You need to re-read Zawodny's blog : http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/ a) They're required to publicize any patent, and a layman's video is one way of doing it. b) Zawodny says that he believes there IS credible evidence for LENR c) Zawodny says that he has NOT seen credible scientific evidence for any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable **commercial** device producing useful amounts of net energy (and then clarifies what he means by scientific evidence -- and I think everyone here agrees that Rossi's tests didn't amount to that, and that Defkalion have showed nothing.) It's Rossi (and Defkalion) he's skeptical of. d) The subject heading is a mis-statement of what Gibbs said (ie that NASA's statement added nothing useful). Neither Zawodny or Gibbs said that LENR couldn't be useful. Zawodny wrote on his blog: As for what people are trying to read into this video, specifically my use of the word “demonstrated”, it is my professional opinion that the production of excess energy has been demonstrated when the results of the last 20+ years of experimentation are evaluated. There has been a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable. If any of those other terms were applicable I would have used them instead. If anything, it is the lack of a single clear demonstration of reliable, useful, and controllable production of excess power that has held LENR research back. As a non-technical piece aimed at the general public, my limited media training has taught me that less information/detail is generally better than more. I did not produce or direct the video. While I saw the video before it was released, I did not learn of it’s release until the email started pouring in Thursday morning. He paints a dismal picture of progress in the field. There has been more than a single instance of reliable and controllable amounts of excess heat.The lastest commercial claims, even if they remain shrouded in trade secrets, should have been expected to arise by now give the pace of developments in recent years. Harry
