Nice! Sometimes I can't see the obvious, You are suggesting a formula to
make spent uranium into a skeletal catalyst? Already a great idea or did you
something even better in mind?
Fran
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009
This thread may seem unrelated to energy but in the same way reactionless
drives are contemplated with respect to Casimir cavities these legends may
have a kernel of truth. There is no moving linear differential motion of gas
atoms like the reactionless drive theories but there are trapped ambient
Krebbs cycle: H2O2 hydrogen-peroxide is present within the metabolic
intracellular energyproducing/respiration 'Krebbs Cycle' constantly. Likely as
not a hydrolytic spin-off relative to this ubiquitous cellular function creates
H2 O2 intracellularly in sufficient amounts. And in the present
I hope readers of Vo don't mind if I have this public conversation with Jed.
At 11:21 PM 10/1/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Rothwell, J., CETI's 1 kilowatt cold fusion device denonstrated.
Infinite Energy, 1996. 1(56): p. 18.
That wasn't his work, it was CETI's work.
I wrote: On top of the possibility of a K40-D2O-gamma chain
reaction, there is the possibility of an acoustic resonance induced
cavitation augmentation of that reaction. Cavitation, especially,
multi-bubble cavitation seeded by gamma tracks, could involve
various elements in proton
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted on his own
website, then all
you need on LENR-CANR.org is a URL pointing to it iso to your own
web site. It
wouldn't matter in the slightest to the rest of the world where the actual
document resides.
Robin has a
From Robin and Abd:
Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted on his own
website, then all you need on LENR-CANR.org is a URL pointing to
it iso to your own web site. It wouldn't matter in the slightest
to the rest of the world where the actual document resides.
Robin has a point.
Frank Roarty wrote:
Has Vortex previously considered cavitation of ambient gases in limestone
and other calcium based megaliths? Numerous cultures have common legends of
levitating great stones and I would be interested if they share rare earth
metal ingredients like calcium.
What? Calcium
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Roarty, Francis X
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
Ok - so I am over the line but I wouldn't call it antigravity -
Not quite what you had in mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KzmB2bI7s
Maybe a little closer:
http://www.youtube.com/v/T_whh8O_EMo
The
I meant to say alkaline earth metal not rare earth.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:55 PM
To: froarty...@comcast.net
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:megolith levitation
Frank Roarty wrote:
Has Vortex
I wrote:
As far as I know, Swartz has never actually attempted to turn a flow
calorimeter cell sideways to see if the performance changes. Cravens
and I have actually tested this hypothesis by experiment. We tried
turning cells sideways. It makes no measurable difference.
I forgot to
At 11:14 AM 10/2/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted on his own
website, then all
you need on LENR-CANR.org is a URL pointing to it iso to your own
web site. It
wouldn't matter in the slightest to the rest of the world
If you have not dealt with a skeptic lately, here is a reminder of
what they are like:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1940
Scroll down to the bottom and you will see that this person
absolutely rejects any paper not published in a U.S. peer-reviewed
journal. He will not even glance
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The usefulness of lenr-canr.org would increase somewhat if the
bibliography included useful links. I have some suggestions about
how to implement this . . .
Links constantly change. It is a nightmare to keep up with them. Even
the publishers' web sites change
If you have not dealt with a skeptic lately, here is a reminder of what they
are like:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1940
Scroll down to the bottom and you will see that this person absolutely
rejects any paper not published in a U.S. peer-reviewed journal. He will not
even glance
Unfortunately for me, this fellow has now actually found a weakness
in a paper, and also locked me out of the discussion. He says the
tritium findings at AMOCO were weak, because the count only doubled.
That sounds like a significant increase to me, but he is right that
the paper lacks
Hi Frank
Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.
This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
Search
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:13:39 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
I wrote: On top of the possibility of a K40-D2O-gamma chain
reaction, there is the possibility of an acoustic resonance induced
cavitation augmentation of that reaction. Cavitation, especially,
multi-bubble
Mauro,
I reviewed some of Zitter and ZPE -If I implied that time had
spatial dimension then yes I was wrong. That would imply that something
could move in the temporal direction and would no longer occupy the same
spatial position which is untrue. IMHO temporal displacement would only
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:03:51 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
At 06:30 PM 9/30/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Note that in at least
one of Dr. Oriani's papers he reports ionizing radiation emitted
from the vapor
above a CF cell.
I don't think that there is any
It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of
velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz
contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a
consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding
the nature of
Dardik's Team Blocks ReporterÂ’s Attempt to Meet With Fleischmann
by Steven B. Krivit
TISBURY, U.K. -- A pre-arranged meeting between this reporter and Professor
Martin Fleischmann, co-discoverer of cold fusion, failed to occur
yesterday, allegedly as a result of Fleischmann's failing health.
At 11:22 AM 10/2/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
If you would agree, perhaps some of us could edit sections of your
bibliography HTML to add links; links to original publishers might be
useful in any case, whether or not you host the actual paper, and
send these sections to you
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:53:22 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Bias is too strong a word. It is more a case of neat-freak programmer (me)
who likes to keep things in neat categories. I meant what I said: people
come to LENR-CANR looking for one thing, and I don't want them to
On Oct 2, 2009, at 4:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
It's because CF started with lattice based
reactions, and all the work since has also been lattice based
(AFAIK)- in fact I
doubt that anyone other than me has even considered that it might
not need to be
lattice based.
Not true.
At 04:19 PM 10/2/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The usefulness of lenr-canr.org would increase somewhat if the
bibliography included useful links. I have some suggestions about
how to implement this . . .
Links constantly change. It is a nightmare to keep up with them.
HI Abd,
You are not the first to suggest that my two cents may be worth even less.
First of all, I just want to be clear on the fact that I have been impressed
by the amount of tireless work you have doing over in the Wiki thicket
trying to improve the flow of accurate information. No doubt,
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:21:08 -0800:
Hi,
Sorry Horace, no harm intended.
[snip]
On Oct 2, 2009, at 4:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
It's because CF started with lattice based
reactions, and all the work since has also been lattice based
(AFAIK)- in
Steve
* According to Quackwatch
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/Dardik/index.html , the revocation
proceeding was initiated by Ellen Burstein MacFarlane, a former TV
investigative reporter.
This is not a defense of Dardik.
But Quackwatch is a little bit like letting the fox
Steven Krivit wrote:
*Dardik's Team Blocks Reporter’s Attempt to Meet With Fleischmann
*by Steven B. Krivit
[ rest snipped ]
This sounds like rather dreadful news regarding Fleischman.
A related question: Is there any evidence from folks not associated
with Dardik that the superwave
At 04:32 PM 10/2/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
[quoting Jed Rothwell]
If you have not dealt with a skeptic lately, here is a reminder
of what they
are like:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1940
I'm trying to figure out why the original author mentioned cold
fusion.
At 08:18 PM 10/2/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:03:51 -0400:
It
might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation
approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed fusion,
basically a protein, I
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Sure. So? Are we running a Find-The-Skeptic game? Look, we already know that
there are hosts of these pseudo-skeptics.
I do this for practice. It is good to match wits with them a few times a
year. It is good to keep in practice and keep the arguments sharp and up to
At 09:37 PM 10/2/2009, you wrote:
Dardik's Team Blocks Reporter's Attempt to Meet With Fleischmann
by Steven B. Krivit
Sad and worrisome, to be sure, but there is little alternative but to
trust Fleischmann's wife, who clearly supported the isolation. I hope
Fleischmann is well enough to
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Steve, you were unable to see Fleischmann, which is certainly unfortunate.
However, how was his wife? Did she seem stable, or would you suspect that
she was under duress or undue influence, based on your observation of her?
She's fine, for goodness sake. I have been
At 09:37 PM 10/2/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
First of all, I just want to be clear on the fact that I have been impressed
by the amount of tireless work you have doing over in the Wiki thicket
trying to improve the flow of accurate information. No doubt, it's a
thankless
At 11:35 PM 10/2/2009, you wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Sure. So? Are we running a Find-The-Skeptic game? Look, we already
know that there are hosts of these pseudo-skeptics.
I do this for practice. It is good to match wits with them a few
times a year. It is good to keep in practice
On Oct 2, 2009, at 5:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:21:08
-0800:
Hi,
Sorry Horace, no harm intended.
No harm experienced. No emotional content to my response was
intended. Sorry, my writing style is a bit dry and terse, so
On Oct 2, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:18 PM 10/2/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009
00:03:51 -0400:
It
might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation
approach, we might suspect, would
39 matches
Mail list logo
