Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
FWIW. I found this at: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1951page=7 I asked a contact from Italy check the videos and documentation last night (the contact knows the Bologna university very well). Summary: Rossi just has a black box where the university scientists are not allowed to look into (hey, patent pending, you know). Only measurements from outside are allowed. For example: to check the gamma-radiation Rossi has provided a special hole on one spot of his machine, and only there the radiation may be measured. The university scientists are 'used' by Rossi to provide acceptance for his in invention. Maybe one scientist is involved in the scam. During the first of the three videos the camera also turns to the invited professors and university board, naming them specifically. My contact was laughing, telling me that in Bologna the higher level management has only their positions because of family or politics, and that those 'professors' have no clue about the physics involved. But they really like publicity. Conclusion: this looks very much like the demonstration of the magnetic machine in Delft University (Netherlands) last year, where scam artists are using the naive openness of scientific University staff to create credibility. While they are not willing to show what's inside the black box (patent issues), not even to the people doing the experiments.
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Ok, if the black box will be openedm what can we see except some black or not- powder? Can we expect that Rossi gives detailed description, recipe, protocol. a 101NiH course and a long FAQ so that anybody skilled enough (a pervese formulation BTW!) can reproduce his gizmo and use it to generate energy? Peter On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 3:31 PM, peatbog peat...@teksavvy.com wrote: FWIW. I found this at: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1951page=7 I asked a contact from Italy check the videos and documentation last night (the contact knows the Bologna university very well). Summary: Rossi just has a black box where the university scientists are not allowed to look into (hey, patent pending, you know). Only measurements from outside are allowed. For example: to check the gamma-radiation Rossi has provided a special hole on one spot of his machine, and only there the radiation may be measured. The university scientists are 'used' by Rossi to provide acceptance for his in invention. Maybe one scientist is involved in the scam. During the first of the three videos the camera also turns to the invited professors and university board, naming them specifically. My contact was laughing, telling me that in Bologna the higher level management has only their positions because of family or politics, and that those 'professors' have no clue about the physics involved. But they really like publicity. Conclusion: this looks very much like the demonstration of the magnetic machine in Delft University (Netherlands) last year, where scam artists are using the naive openness of scientific University staff to create credibility. While they are not willing to show what's inside the black box (patent issues), not even to the people doing the experiments.
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
This is a quote from peatbog, who is not here. I would answer his skeptical assertions as follows. You can see why I wrote my short description the way I did: The university scientists are 'used' by Rossi to provide acceptance for his in invention. Maybe one scientist is involved in the scam. During the first of the three videos the camera also turns to the invited professors and university board, naming them specifically. My contact was laughing, telling me that in Bologna the higher level management has only their positions because of family or politics, and that those 'professors' have no clue about the physics involved. So, you think it is a scam? All hypothesis -- including yours -- must be held to the same standard of rigor. So why don't you give us a thumbnail description of how this scam might work. Details are not needed; just cover the basics to explain the following: There is small black box on the table. 16 kg of water is pumped into it; hot water and then dry steam comes out. The box clearly could not hold 20 kg of water in the first place, and it was not hot when the experiment began, so the steam could not have been hidden inside it. An RH meter is used by an expert to confirm the steam is dry. Elementary, first-principle physics prove beyond question that the box must be producing 12 kW. I hope you do not dispute that! The box is connected to an ordinary wall socket, which cannot possibly provide 12 kW Less than 0.1 g of hydrogen is added to the box, so the heat cannot come from hydrogen combustion. Here is a detail you do not know, but I know for a fact. The experiment has been conducted several times over the last month, and many times before that in front of other witnesses, often for very long periods, which precludes the possibility that there is a hidden source of SO . . . how do you explain it? How can anyone conduct a scam of this nature? Where do you think the energy is coming from? I think these professors do understand the laws of physics, and I am sure they understand how much energy it takes to vaporize water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is a quote from peatbog, who is not here. Peatbog has crossposted from a forum that is a spinoff of the Steorn forum. The actual author is ping1...@gmail.com if you wish to address him directly. Terry
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Salut, Jed. I'm not Peatbog but this whole thing really bothers me, and I'd love to be convinced that it's real. On 01/17/2011 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: So, you think it is a scam? All hypothesis -- including yours -- must be held to the same standard of rigor. So why don't you give us a thumbnail description of how this scam might work. Details are not needed; just cover the basics to explain the following: There is small black box on the table. 16 kg of water is pumped into it; hot water and then dry steam comes out. The box clearly could not hold 20 kg of water in the first place, and it was not hot when the experiment began, so the steam could not have been hidden inside it. An RH meter is used by an expert to confirm the steam is dry. Elementary, first-principle physics prove beyond question that the box must be producing 12 kW. I hope you do not dispute that! The box is connected to an ordinary wall socket, which cannot possibly provide 12 kW Less than 0.1 g of hydrogen is added to the box, so the heat cannot come from hydrogen combustion. Here is a detail you do not know, but I know for a fact. The experiment has been conducted several times over the last month, and many times before that in front of other witnesses, often for very long periods, which precludes the possibility that there is a hidden source of SO . . . how do you explain it? How can anyone conduct a scam of this nature? Where do you think the energy is coming from? /I don't know./ But I'm not a magician, and I'm not a con artist. As I already observed, after David Copperfield disappeared the Statue of Liberty in front of a live audience, there was, as I recall, a period of total astonishment on the part of an awful lot of people. He had done the impossible, and there was /no/ possible explanation! It was only quite some time later that the trick was explained. The fact that, initially, nobody outside Copperfield's inner circle could explain it did not prove that it was real magic. It proved, rather, that somebody who was extremely clever and very devious had come up with a really remarkable way to fool the audience. In this case, we have, as I've already said, a black box with a secret ingredient known to just one person. The trick, therefore, cannot even be attempted by anyone else. The secret ingredient thus serves a very important function: It prevents independent testing of the claims. Does it also provide the catalyst which makes cold fusion work in this case? Or is it just misdirection? Time will tell. ** I also recall reading about a scam in which someone claims to have a tablet which turns water into gasoline. The demonstration consists of drawing a bucket of water straight from a spigot -- obviously totally ordinary water and a totally ordinary bucket, there is no place in the bucket to conceal anything. The scammer adds the magic tablet, lets it dissolve, and then the mark checks the contents of the bucket. It's gasoline! Wow!! In that case the trick is to drain the pipes and run a buck of gasoline into them before the demo. Need to do this in an upstairs room, of course, so the gasoline will ride on top of the water farther down in the plumbing, and maybe you need to use a small bucket. None the less it's a trick which most marks would /never/ think of. I can't think of a way Rossi could have brought the necessary energy into the room, either. But that doesn't prove it wasn't done. Only an open description of the process and honest replication can prove that. I think these professors do understand the laws of physics, and I am sure they understand how much energy it takes to vaporize water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
On 01/17/2011 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The box is connected to an ordinary wall socket, which cannot possibly provide 12 kW European outlets typically carry 220 volts. 12 kw / 220 volts = 54 amps. It's not impossible to draw that from a simple wall plug, but it takes some preparation. While I doubt that's how it was done, unless someone inspected the plug and the cord, it can't be ruled out as being impossible, particularly if the 12 kW can be shaded a bit. If the person doing the demonstration is not honest, you cannot take /anything/ for granted. And that is why issues with Rossi's background are so important.
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: It's not impossible to draw that from a simple wall plug, but it takes some preparation. While I doubt that's how it was done, unless someone inspected the plug and the cord, it can't be ruled out as being impossible, particularly if the 12 kW can be shaded a bit. Shading a bit would not work. You have to shade it by a factor of 10. Frankly, that's impossible. If the person doing the demonstration is not honest, you cannot take /anything/ for granted. And that is why issues with Rossi's background are so important. If all of the people doing the demonstration are dishonest then you cannot take anything for granted. If Rossi alone is a crook that would make no difference. The calorimetry was designed by the others and the instruments are their property. Rossi cannot fool a thermocouple or a power meter. To engineer the 54 A wall socket, Rossi would have to go to the lab secretly and rewire the place, and then substitute a superconducting wire for the heater power supplies so that the wire does not burn up, and then he would have to replace professors power meter with one that looks exactly identical but gives the wrong values. That sort of thing might happen in a pulp thriller or James Bond movie, but not in real life. This kind of scenario falls in the rats drinking water in Mizuno's lab category. Regarding the quality of the steam, if it is dry that makes the computation simple. If it is wet that reduces the excess enthalpy somewhat, but it does not eliminate it. Assuming the heater is at 400 W, that's 400 W * 60 s = 24,000 J/min, or 5,714 calories. The flow rate is 292 ml/min so the water temperature would rise 20°C, to 33°C. Not even close to boiling, wet or dry. The outlet temperature was measured at 101°C, by the way. Let me add that fact to the description in the News section . . . I have encountered genuine energy scams and incompetent researchers. It is obvious they are wrong. They do not begin to fool me, and it is inconceivable they would full experienced professors who have been doing calorimetry and electrical measurements for 50 years. As I said, when people who propose the hypothesis that this might be a scam or a trick, I think it is incumbent upon them to explain how this trick might work. All hypothesis must be rigorously supported. This is a simple physics experiment, albeit one with a black box in the middle. There are some complicated cold fusion experiments with iffy results that might be faked, or at least shaded. Some are shaded, by wishful thinking. This is not among them. The laws of physics are well defined in this case. I do not see how it could be something like a staged magic trick. Such tricks fool the eye, in any case. They never fool instruments. Penn and Teller cannot change the values displayed by a power meter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Remain detached. I'm not convinced either way. harry From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 12:18:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era? Salut, Jed. I'm not Peatbog but this whole thing really bothers me, and I'd love to be convinced that it's real. On 01/17/2011 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
On 01/17/2011 02:04 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Remain detached. I'm not convinced either way. Neither am I, Harry. I'm obviously leaning /against/ at this point but I know perfectly well I'm no expert. I'm still reading the discussion with deep interest. I've slung some mud, it's true, but largely in the hope that my points would be answered. (The unfortunate thing is, if this is not on the up-and-up, then it's in the world of con games, and nobody on this list is an expert at them. Furthermore, I would guess that nobody at Bologna is an expert on con games. Thus, appeal-to-authority doesn't work here.) harry *From:* Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Mon, January 17, 2011 12:18:29 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era? Salut, Jed. I'm not Peatbog but this whole thing really bothers me, and I'd love to be convinced that it's real. On 01/17/2011 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I'm still reading the discussion with deep interest. I've slung some mud, it's true, but largely in the hope that my points would be answered. (The unfortunate thing is, if this is not on the up-and-up, then it's in the world of con games, and nobody on this list is an expert at them. Furthermore, I would guess that nobody at Bologna is an expert on con games. I think you should propose a method by which a con game would be physically possible without the cooperation of the people who designed the calorimetry, brought the instruments, and operated them. Imagine, if you will, that an Interstellar alien gives you a small indestructible box that cannot be opened, and tells you only that if you input 400 W, it will produce 12 kW. Even though you cannot see inside it, and you have no idea how it works, please describe it might be a con if you yourself test it, or if a group of distinguished expert professors test it. In what sense could it be wrong? A calorimeter by its very nature knows nothing about the source of the energy. All calorimeters are inherently black box testing machines. They see all heat the same way, be it nuclear, chemical or mechanical friction. They do not NOT see heat that is not really there, and there is no way you can fool one. There are no hidden inputs or outputs to this device. It is small enough and portable enough to confirm that. The only inputs are electricity, hydrogen gas, and water, and the only output is hot water which turns to steam. I do not think it is physically possible for this to be con. If you do, please describe the general nature of this con. If you cannot suggest any plausible con, then your assertion is like saying: I think it is magic. That is to say, your assertion cannot be tested or falsified. If an invisible, undetectable, unspecified con is possible, any experiment might be one. As I said, anyone could think of ways to make a stage magician trick, or a movie special effect version. That's trivial. But that would be instantly apparent to the professors. They would see an extra hose or a heavy-duty electric wire. You cannot hide such things from people who are right there, looking at and arranging the equipment (which they did), when those people understand the nature of electricity, water, steam, physics and chemistry. There is no conceivable way you can make them think that hot air is steam. I assume you are not asserting that the professors are in cahoots with Rossi. If they are, all bets are off. By the way, a wire capable of conducting 12 kW is MUCH thicker and heavier than an ordinary 1.5 kW wall socket wire. See the wires on electric water heaters or clothes driers. If you tried to draw 12 kW with an ordinary wire it would burn up instantly. I am not necessarily ready to believe this claim. I think Nagel's criteria should be applied. But I am even less ready to reject it on the basis that calorimetry might not work for unspecified reasons which no one can define, test, or falsify. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
I wrote: I think you should propose a method by which a con game would be physically possible without the cooperation of the people who designed the calorimetry, brought the instruments, and operated them. As a practical matter, you cannot do that until you have had time to study the technical details of the experiment. You have to look at the photos and configuration. I hope to upload these soon. Or at least a photo. I am having the usual problems with files generated on Macs and PCs in Europe and the U.S. For now I am only saying there is no evidence for a con and on the face of it, a con is physically impossible. So you are premature suggesting that hypothesis. You have to have a defensible reason for any hypothesis. The assertion that the guy may be crook is not a scientifically defensible argument, since it cannot be tested or shown to have any plausible connection. Even if Rossi was a world famous magician or Macavity the mystery cat, the Hidden Paw, he would have no ability to change the laws of physics or prevent calorimeters from working. Magicians tricks ALWAYS interfere with human perception, with sleight of hand, hidden devices and the like. They never interfere with instrument readings. I do not think there are any examples in the history of 20th or 21st century experimental science in which a con-man was able to fool experimentalists. In the 19th century I recall there was a perpetual motion scam that turned out to be driven with air hoses, attached to the equipment tables. The modern equivalent would be hidden electric wires or induction. Very easy to arrange, but impossible to hide from an expert who physically present looking at the equipment and attaching thermocouples and pumps to it. I am pretty sure you cannot use hidden induction to power something at 12 kW! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
OK, Jed, you've made a lot of good points. I will admit that you've made a very good case, and shut up about this. With ... er ... just one or two last comments: On 01/17/2011 04:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I'm still reading the discussion with deep interest. I've slung some mud, it's true, but largely in the hope that my points would be answered. (The unfortunate thing is, if this is not on the up-and-up, then it's in the world of con games, and nobody on this list is an expert at them. Furthermore, I would guess that nobody at Bologna is an expert on con games. I think you should propose a method by which a con game would be physically possible without the cooperation of the people who designed the calorimetry, brought the instruments, and operated them. Imagine, if you will, that an Interstellar alien gives you a small indestructible box that cannot be opened, and tells you only that if you input 400 W, it will produce 12 kW. Even though you cannot see inside it, and you have no idea how it works, please describe it might be a con if you yourself test it, or if a group of distinguished expert professors test it. In what sense could it be wrong? A calorimeter by its very nature knows nothing about the source of the energy. All calorimeters are inherently black box testing machines. They see all heat the same way, be it nuclear, chemical or mechanical friction. They do not NOT see heat that is not really there, and there is no way you can fool one. There are no hidden inputs or outputs to this device. It is small enough and portable enough to confirm that. The only inputs are electricity, hydrogen gas, and water, and the only output is hot water which turns to steam. I do not think it is physically possible for this to be con. If you do, please describe the general nature of this con. If you cannot suggest any plausible con, then your assertion is like saying: I think it is magic. That is to say, your assertion cannot be tested or falsified. If an invisible, undetectable, unspecified con is possible, any experiment might be one. As I said, anyone could think of ways to make a stage magician trick, or a movie special effect version. That's trivial. But that would be instantly apparent to the professors. They would see an extra hose or a heavy-duty electric wire. You cannot hide such things from people who are right there, looking at and arranging the equipment (which they did), when those people understand the nature of electricity, water, steam, physics and chemistry. There is no conceivable way you can make them think that hot air is steam. I assume you are not asserting that the professors are in cahoots with Rossi. If they are, all bets are off. By the way, a wire capable of conducting 12 kW is MUCH thicker and heavier than an ordinary 1.5 kW wall socket wire. See the wires on electric water heaters or clothes driers. If you tried to draw 12 kW with an ordinary wire it would burn up instantly. Right, dissipated power = I^2 * R. You can draw 30 amps from a 15 amp rated wire without an instant disaster, but (50/30)^2 = 2.8 times the heating effect of the 30 amp overload, or about 11 times the rated carrying capacity of the wires, and that's going to melt down pretty quickly. In any case input power was measured, so playing games with that is not a viable option. I am not necessarily ready to believe this claim. I think Nagel's criteria should be applied. But I am even less ready to reject it on the basis that calorimetry might not work for unspecified reasons which no one can define, test, or falsify. OK, but if you're /not/ ready to accept the claim, what reason could you cite for rejecting it? It seems to me there are only three possibilities here. 1. It's all true. 2. Rossi is fooling the scientists who are on site and running the show. This, I think you have said, is not plausible. 3. They're all in cahoots. This seems pretty implausible, even to me. So, what other possibility is there? The signal is too big for the result to be a mistake. Rejecting it on account of criterion #5 -- saying it hasn't been replicated or run long enough to rule out magic chemicals inside the box -- seems pretty thin. It sounds a lot like saying something was wrong with the demo but I don't know what. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
On 01/17/2011 04:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not think there are any examples in the history of 20th or 21st century experimental science in which a con-man was able to fool experimentalists. Uri Geller, 1975, SRI.
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:17:24 -0500: Hi, [snip] Well, one proposal which seems to stand up is that the water didn't turn into steam, at all. Unless the steam was recondensed and the resulting water weighed, that can't be ruled out. Unless someone besides Rossi was privy to what was inside the reactor, /you just don't know/ what happened to the water. Weighing the reactor before and after would have helped, too -- was that done? If the weight scale were rigged, water could have been diverted through the scale to a hole in the floor. I wonder if anyone lifted it up to see if was in fact the free standing jerry can that it appears to be? Did the profs witness the actual setup of the equipment? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:41 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Did the profs witness the actual setup of the equipment? The story is that the profs set up and ran the entire demonstration. T
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I do not think there are any examples in the history of 20th or 21st century experimental science in which a con-man was able to fool experimentalists. Uri Geller, 1975, SRI. Ah. I wasn't aware of that one. I gather that was something like a study of ESP. Puthoff and Targ concluded that the tests were successfully enough to warrant further serious study. I would not call that con a big success. It doesn't take much to get a scientist to say, I'd like to do more experiments. This about as difficult as convincing a cat to have another bite of filet mignon. ESP is difficult to study. It is psychological, and statistical in nature (assuming it exists at all). Puthoff is not a psychologist, so he is no expert. Calorimetry and measuring steam as about as different from ESP or psychology as branches of science can be. They are among the oldest, best established, and hardest of hard sciences. They do not depend on measuring behavior or having faith in a person. They are based on instrument readings. Just because it is possible to con a physicist into wanting to run additional tests, that does not mean you could fool an expert into thinking that hot air is steam. Conceivably you could do it for a short while with a device that the expert himself had no hand in building, with fake instruments or something, but this configuration was designed by the experts, and they brought their own instruments. Accusations of criminality have also been leveled against Dardik. Skeptics have concluded that he is a con-man who fooled many people, including: * McKubre, even though McKubre tested the technique in his own lab without Dardik or anyone else from Energetics Technology being present. * Duncan, even though Duncan wrote the book on calorimetry. These skeptics believe that Dardik has the power to deceive people from thousand of miles away, by tricks so powerful they affect instrument readings and computer data. In effect, they ascribe magical powers to Dardik. You might as well claim he could change experiments after he dies. McKubre is very careful. He calibrates. You cannot sneak into his lab in the middle of the night and push a few buttons or change a meter and produce a fake result. The people who ascribe this astounding ability to con men seem to have no grasp of what these experiments are like, or how careful someone like McKubre or Duncan is. One of them remarked to me that Duncan could have caught the fraud if he had secretly brought a helium detector into the lab at Energetics and surreptitiously captured a sample of gas from the cell. I pointed to this photo of a helium detector: http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosENEAFrascati I pointed out: 1. That is not something you can hide under your coat. 2. You have to design and experiment from the ground up to accommodate helium detection; most experiments are not leak-tight enough. 3. You don't just whip out a detector and attach it when no one is looking -- the process takes days or weeks. People who imagine cold fusion might be a combination of fraud and mistakes know nothing about the research, and nothing about science in general. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Did the profs witness the actual setup of the equipment? The story is that the profs set up and ran the entire demonstration. That's what they told me. Celani said: All the measurements were made, INDEPENDENTLY, from a Researcher (and Technicians) of Bologna University. Rossi made only supervision about key safety aspects. He did not actually mention setting up, but other people have. Anyway, the people who conducted the tests are writing up their work now. You can see that I got some preliminary notes from them. So you will get the story from them directly in a week or two. Have patience . . . say I, after spending the weekend hounding and hassling these people for information. I would like to point out how unlikely this con-man scenario is, for a couple of compelling reasons I have not enumerated -- Rossi is a strange dude. He is determined to protect trade secrets. But he knows that he cannot convince university profs. to do a test except on their own terms. I know many profs, especially elderly ones who used to be Presidents of the Chemical Society or the Indian AEC or what-have-you. Such people NEVER take orders from anyone. They never agree to do anything except on their own terms, with their own instruments and grad students and colleagues. They never take anyone's word for anything. They use techniques from 1943 even when electronic gadgets do it faster. They do not read computer manuals or learn how to use Microsoft Word. They wrote the book on measuring steam or OCV or neutrons, and they know that subject better than anyone else on earth. (Or they think they do.) You can't get them to write a memo, order lunch or tie their shoes except by methods they have fully investigated, tested, and confirmed. Reason two is pretty simple. Ask yourself, how likely is it that you persuade a professor to walk into a room, look at a few instruments, and say: Hey, whaddya know! It works after all! Ha! Cold fusion may seem to violate theory and it is the biggest controversy in history. Dozens of people who replicated it had their reputations trashed . . . But what the hell, I'll just sign off on this and tell everyone in the audience here that I am sure it works. Do you really suppose that professors are unaware of academic politics and the biggest death-match fight in the history of physics? I have met some stupid professors, but two things they always know are academic politics and who has the best parking space in the staff parking lot. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
On 01/17/2011 09:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: I do not think there are any examples in the history of 20th or 21st century experimental science in which a con-man was able to fool experimentalists. Uri Geller, 1975, SRI. Ah. I wasn't aware of that one. I gather that was something like a study of ESP. Geller claimed to be able to bend spoons using mental powers, and perform other amazing feats of telekinesis. He was -- is -- a very slick operator, and fooled a lot of people. Using little more than misdirection and clever patter, he convinced a lot of people that they saw a spoon he was holding just, like, bend over, due to the power of his mind. He bent keys as well, and claimed to be able to print images on photographic film simply by thinking at it. It was, IIRC, James Randi (known more commonly as Mud on this list for various reasons) who first outed him, but Geller's a slippery dude and didn't stay outed. One of the major photography rags of the era (Pop Photo or Modern Photography, I forget which) ran an article on him, partly due to his claim to be able to think things onto film, which claim they didn't care for. Apparently the folks at SRI weren't as careful as the photography magazine's reporter, who found Randi unconvincing.
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Ah, the first mass media notice, from a radio station. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Apparently, a reporter from the NY Times was there... -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era? Ah, the first mass media notice, from a radio station. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Apparently, a reporter from the NY Times was there... Really? Where did you hear that? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
It was in a transcript from someone who attended... can't remember which website. if you really need it I can go thru my History and try to find it... -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era? Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Apparently, a reporter from the NY Times was there... Really? Where did you hear that? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold-fusion-demo.html
