Re: [Vo]:Where is Dr. Park?

On 01/28/2011 02:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > As long as some number of wealthy investors and big corporations are > convinced and begin serious research, it makes no difference how long > the New York Times holds out. We don't need the whole world to believe > this in Stage 1. We just need peo

Re: [Vo]:Three interesting messages from Rossi blog

On 01/28/2011 09:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Summary: > > 1. Defkalion Energy Group goes public. Jed -- or anybody -- do you have a link to any additional information on Defkalion? (OK, yes, I could email stsalikoglou but I'd rather not if somebody here's already got information on this outfit

Re: [Vo]:Mean gas speed in specific direction

On 01/25/2011 06:43 PM, David Jonsson wrote: > Hi > > We know that mean root square speed in specific perpendicular > directions is like this > > Vrms^2 = 3 Vrmx_x^2 = 3 Vrmx_y^2 = 3 Vrmx_z^2 > > What is the relation for the mean linear speed Vavg in specific > directions? > > Could it be like th

Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity and LENR

On 01/25/2011 02:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > *From:* Horace Heffner > > > > Ø Also of possible interest is that my rough computation for the > deflated state up quark: > > > > Ø http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf >

[Vo]:Wet steam: Tempest in a teapot?

I was thinking about the "Is the steam wet?" question a bit tonight, and I realized a couple things. These are just based on gut feel, I haven't done calculations to back them up (wouldn't even know how to start to get numeric results), but I think they're interesting gedanken points. Let's just

Re: [Vo]:EETIMES publishes report

On 01/24/2011 03:11 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > The Casimir effect is significant in the binding potential of the > deflated state, and thus in elongating the duration of the state > pre-fusion, though the net energy imparted by the Casimir effect is > zero, by symmetry. A nuclear Casimir effec

Re: [Vo]:Levi report uploaded

On 01/24/2011 02:39 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Well, they *do* have one which has run for 2 years. > Right. Sez who, exactly, besides Rossi? What actual evidence is there of its existence? And if they've had this thing working like a champ for the last two years, why did they sit on the ne

[Vo]:Radiation issues with Ni+p->Cu->Ni

My skeptical friend, who suggested the "thermite scenario", objects to Rossi's proposed reaction chain: (x)Ni+p --> (x+1)Cu --> (x+1)Ni ; (x+1)Ni + p --> (x+2)Cu --> (x+2)Ni; repeat until stable as follows: > The obvious problem with this story: > > Ni + p --> Cu --> Ni; Ni + p --> Cu; re

Re: [Vo]:Levi report uploaded

On 01/24/2011 01:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > Wait a minute: > > My eyeballs scanned the following paragraph: > > Page 6: > > Conclusions > > The amount of power and energy produce during both tests is indeed > impressive and, TOGETHER WITH THE SELF SUSTAINING STATE REACH DURING

Re: [Vo]:Monday Update to Release Information on Self Sustain Mode

On 01/22/2011 10:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > This is important! Rossi is saying that on Monday, they will upload a > report by Levi et al. describing a self-sustaining run. This is the > Holy Grail of cold fusion: a self-sustaining device that produces > commercially useful levels of power. It'

Re: [Vo]:Mainstream

This is just a reprint of the Popular Science article. (It's credited so it's not plagiarism.) Looks like Fox will print pretty much anything, too -- but then, what would you expect from the outfit which broke the "moon landing hoax" story...? On 01/24/2011 12:09 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > http:

Re: [Vo]:HP474AC probe measures Relative Humidity, not steam quality

On 01/23/2011 10:32 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: >> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >> No, I don't think so. The stuff pumped out of the supply tank, and into >> the reactor, is 100% water; air comes into the supply tank at the top >> and displaces the wa

Re: [Vo]:Force from bouncing ball higher than resting ball?

<mailto:aethe...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Of course, in practice the results can sometimes indicate that > momentum isn't conserved. > > This example is in principle not dissimilar to some inertial > propulsion concepts and there is evidence t

Re: [Vo]:HP474AC probe measures Relative Humidity, not steam quality

On 01/23/2011 09:49 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > >> If it's pure steam (no entrained air) at 100 C, then the RH must be >> 100%, a priori, since the vapor pressure of water at 100 C is 1 >> atmosphere. >> > I think

Re: [Vo]:Test of boiling water in a frying pan

Thank you, Jed. That was a worthwhile experiment.

Re: [Vo]:HP474AC probe measures Relative Humidity, not steam quality

On 01/23/2011 01:12 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > This whole issue /[of steam quality measurements]/ may be of academic > interest only... Only if another demonstration is done with no input (closed loop). Otherwise it's still extremely interesting because, if this measurement was botched as ba

Re: [Vo]:HP474AC probe measures Relative Humidity, not steam quality

On 01/22/2011 10:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > In reply to Jeff Driscoll's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:24:36 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >> This probe does not measure the amount of liquid water droplets in the >> "steam" (ie. mass fraction of water vapor to to total water). It measures

Re: [Vo]:Force from bouncing ball higher than resting ball?

On 01/22/2011 08:39 PM, David Jonsson wrote: > Hi > > Imagine a ball lying on a plane. The wheight is the mass times the > gravitational acceleration. > > Imagine a bouncing ball. Momentarilly the force from it on the plane > is higher and when it is in the air the force is zero. > > My question

Re: [Vo]:Monday Update to Release Information on Self Sustain Mode

On 01/22/2011 11:11 AM, noone noone wrote: > I think it is a very good development. > > It is even more evidence that the reaction is real and robust. > > Safety is NOT the big issue here. The biggest issue is if this works. > > If the NRC has a problem with this technology I think that Rossi > s

Re: [Vo]:Monday Update to Release Information on Self Sustain Mode

On 01/22/2011 10:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > This is important! Rossi is saying that on Monday, they will upload a > report by Levi et al. describing a self-sustaining run. This is the > Holy Grail of cold fusion: a self-sustaining device that produces > commercially useful levels of power. It

Re: [Vo]:Monday Update to Release Information on Self Sustain Mode

Please indicate when you are quoting and when you are writing original material. The style you have been using indicates that /all/ that you post is original material, which is false. On 01/22/2011 09:09 AM, noone noone wrote: > Dear Mr Brian Robertson: > I again want to return on your comment,

Re: [Vo]:Discovery News Article

On 01/22/2011 02:41 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > True, Robin, but Cold Fusion was D + D fusion, this one cannot be > Peter Stuff and nonsense. That's like saying 'thermonuclear fusion is D + T so when Li fuses, later in the chain, it's not thermonuclear fusion." > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:05

Re: [Vo]:Discovery News Article

On 01/21/2011 11:40 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > The DN paper is an exercise in logical fallacies. And it shows how > facts can be ignored. Only the press says that what happened is cold > fusion > i.e. fusion at cold, due to its (the press') inherent sensationalism. > The world is infinitely interes

Re: [Vo]:Announcements from Rossi about paper, next demo, ICCF16

On 01/21/2011 05:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> If he still is the only one who knows the "secret ingredient" at that >> point, then I would definitely start fearing for Rossi's personal >> safety. There are some very big play

Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt

On 01/21/2011 04:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:35:44 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >> If a tiny fraction of the nickel is transmuted each second, and if >> nearly all the transmutation events produce unstable copper which >> even

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt

ere? > > No fake name it's an anagram of my name. > > On 21-1-2011 22:48, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >> >> On 01/21/2011 04:45 PM, Man on Bridges wrote: >>> What about this reaction: >>> >>> Ni (mass 60, 32 neutrons, pres. 26,223%) +

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt

On 01/21/2011 04:45 PM, Man on Bridges wrote: > What about this reaction: > > Ni (mass 60, 32 neutrons, pres. 26,223%) + Tritium (mass 3, 2 > neutrons, pres. synt) --> Cu (mass 63, 34 neutrons, pres. 69,17%) + > gamma radiation. > Where's the tritium come from? And why the fake name "Man on Bri

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt

On 01/21/2011 03:55 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > > Hi Stephan > > You state "If a tiny fraction of the nickel is transmuted each > second, and if nearly all the transmutation events produce unstable > copper which eventually decays back to (higher weight) nickel, and if > it takes multiple ste

Re: [Vo]:Announcements from Rossi about paper, next demo, ICCF16

On 01/21/2011 03:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > WARNING TO ALL OUR READERS: THE REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA > WILL BE DELIVERED MONDAY , JAN 24, ANYTIME. > YOU WILL FIND IT ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND WE ALREADY GIVE > TO EVERYBODY TO REPRODUCE IT EVERYWHERE, FOR ANY PURPOSE, FREE

Re: [Vo]:"Wet" vs Dry Steam in Rossi Experiment

On 01/21/2011 02:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > Of course the simple thing to do would be to use Earthtech's calorimeter: > > http://www.earthtech.org/capabilities/vwfc/ Nuh, uh. No experiment ever works when it's inside that thing. I think it's cursed. > > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner

Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt

he offer. > > > ---- > *From:* Stephen A. Lawrence > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Fri, January 21, 2011 1:51:36 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt > > > > On 01/21/2011 01:43 PM, noone noone wrote: >> It is in the same forum. >&g

Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt

e sample pretty "hot". Or so it seems; I haven't done the calculations to back up the intuition. In any case the text on that page is interesting and certainly worth reading. On 01/21/2011 02:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >>> >>> 4) I read a

Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt

On 01/21/2011 01:43 PM, noone noone wrote: > It is in the same forum. > > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62 Thank you!

Re: [Vo]:Reality check: hidden chemical fuel impossible in 1-hour test

On 01/21/2011 01:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> Jed, you apparently didn't read the message I sent on this in >> response to one of your earlier posts. >> >> Thermite provides sufficient energy density, consumes no air, and >>

Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt

arm Regards, > Andrea > I saw no further response from Rossi on this, and I don't know what the "other forum" in which his original comment appeared might have been. Google didn't turn it up for me. Make if this what you will; it's certainly not unambiguous -- lo

Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt

Jones, since you brought this up, I'd like to ask a question about the copper. According to the handy dandy periodic table on my desktop (Kalzium), copper has two stable isotopes, with 34 and 36 neutrons, respectively. Next best is 38 neutrons, with a half life of about 62 hours, and it's downhil

Re: [Vo]:Reality check: hidden chemical fuel impossible in 1-hour test

On 01/21/2011 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I have done a ballpark analysis of the "hidden chemical fuel" scenario > for Rossi's one-hour test. I have looked at the water heater > specifications in my house and also a tabletop butane cook stove. I > conclude that chemical fuel cannot be the sou

Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents

On 01/21/2011 01:37 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > >>On 01/20/2011 01:29 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > >>Would weighing the entire apparatus before and after reveal > >>a concealed chemical reaction? > > > > >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi addresses RH probe issue

On 01/20/2011 09:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Thanks for your clarification re the humidity instrumentation, Mr. > Rossi. I see in theinformation sheet that there is indeed a probe > available with 'application range' up to 150 deg. C (though > confusingly it says below it sensor operating temp

Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents

On 01/20/2011 04:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> Is Rossi honest? >> >> If he is, it's for real. > > As of Friday, Jan. 14, this question no longer hangs on Rossi's > honesty. Thank goodness! No, that's not correct.

Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents

On 01/20/2011 03:44 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > >> Erm -- "Rossi", not "Rossi and Focardi". I haven't read anything indicating >> Focardi knows what the "secret ingr

Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents

On 01/20/2011 10:48 AM, Rich Murray wrote: > Rossi on his blog explains that the heat output during the demo came > from the nuclear reaction of several picograms of Ni -- about 3 X > 10E-12 gm ... a millionth of a microgram, while the mass of the > nuclear reacting H would be 1 atom of H for eac

Re: [Vo]:The RH meter was the wrong type for this temperature

On 01/20/2011 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Pierre Carbonnelle wrote to me: > >> Macy's report talks of a Delta OHM # HD37AB1347 Indoor Air >> Quality Monitor, whose specifications are here >> . >> >> Could this invalidate the dryne

Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents

On 01/20/2011 09:57 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > Playing devil's advocate in situations like this serve a useful > purpose. Honoring our skeptical bones hopefully help keep our feet > firmly planted on the ground, particularly when our wings would love > to start flapping right now!

Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents

to allow it. If the reactor has, indeed, been inspected by someone other than Rossi, before and after the run, that would be very good to know! > > Harry > > > *From:* Stephen A. Lawrence > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Wed, January 19, 2011 11:35:12 PM >

Re: [Vo]:Krivit relents

On 01/19/2011 05:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > It is already clear that he [Rossi] had no means of faking the experiment. Some time in the last couple days, you asked me for a scenario under which Rossi could have faked it without the cooperation of anybody else present, and I came up dry bu

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

, I'm a computer programmer. I pick nits for a living. Sometimes it sloshes over into real life (/er, if we can consider Vortex to be real life...)/ Anyhow sorry about the semantic pickiness. > lets apply the same standard to his incorrect presumptions, as he > would apply the

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

stics), the connection tube, the cooling space. Cooling > water moves in pipe with maximum 2-3 meters/second > > Please do not forget- the temperature inside the generator is > tipically >400 C so it is easy to deliver steam- and that's in some > way more convincing than hot

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

d > layman... > > Rich Murray 505-819-7388 rmfor...@gmail.com > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >> >>> And as to "not being convinced by anything" ... as long as the conclusions >&g

Re: [Vo]:Miles Mathis

On 01/14/2011 05:04 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: > A demolishing criticism > > of Miles Mathis, particularly on his paper about Pi being 4 > (among many other things, Miles shows > that

Re: [Vo]:Pycno or no?

On 01/18/2011 05:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:38:25 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: >> >> >>> I think Rossi is operating near the edge of a runaway reaction. He >>> uses th

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

This point has come up over and over, and I don't recall seeing an answer. Just exactly what did happen to the steam? Does anyone know? Was it vented outside, vented into the room, or recondensed? If it was condensed, what happened to the coolant? I.e., was there a stream of cooling water run

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

On 01/18/2011 02:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> CLOSE THE LOOP. >> >> He [Rossi] says he can run without any electrical input. Ergo he >> /can/ close the loop, without the expense of a Stirling motor and >> generator. > >

Re: [Vo]:a longer duration black box test would prove issue without disclosure

On 01/18/2011 11:04 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Roarty, Francis X > wrote: > > Rossi could keep his black box method and still prove his claims > with a 24 hour stress test that would produce far more energy than > he could possibly > > Conceal ins

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

On 01/18/2011 11:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: > > > So if they need some electricity to control it, why don't they use > the output to run a generator, and close the loop? At 10:1, they > ought to be

Re: [Vo]:PesWiki's report on Focardi and Rossi

On 01/18/2011 12:03 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run > continually for two years, providing heat for a factory. > Slightly longer quote from the Peswiki page: > Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run > continually f

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

On 01/17/2011 11:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peristaltic pumps are an example of technology that by rights should > not work, but they managed to pull it off. They overcame what seemed > to be insurmountable problems with plastics. You have a wheel pressing > down and squeezing the plastic tube

Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?

On 01/17/2011 09:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence 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 > &

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?

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 di

Re: [Vo]:Leonardo Corp Appears Involved

On 01/17/2011 02:42 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > >From Sterling Allan's site: > > http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/ > > excerpt: > > "Licensees are mentioned, with contracts in the USA and in Europe. > Mass production should escalate in 2-3 year

Re: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011

On 01/17/2011 02:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >>> How do we know that all the water ( 8.8 l) evaporated? > > That's what the RH meter is for. (May have answered already.) Mmmm? I didn't see that mentioned, and I didn't realize

Re: [Vo]:Nagel: Check List for LENR Validation Experiments

On your following list, it appears that item #3 may not have been satisfied. Unless the steam was collected, condensed, and weighed, one significant "matter stream" was not properly accounted for. The device itself should also be weighed, before and after, in order to further assure that all stre

Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?

is an expert on con games. Thus, appeal-to-authority doesn't work here.) > > harry > > > *From:* Stephen A. Lawrence > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Mon, January 17, 2011 12:18:29 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era? > > Sal

Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?

On 01/17/2011 01:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > 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,

Re: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011

I was going to mention this before I saw Peter's message, but he beat me to it. On 01/17/2011 11:14 AM, P.J van Noorden wrote: > Hello Jed, > > How do we know that all the water ( 8.8 l) evaporated? Was the Rossi > device weighted before and after the test? The diameter of the device > is about 1

Re: [Vo]:Dawn of a new era: NOT SO FAST

On 01/17/2011 12:52 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Stephen - There are a few other details in the "big picture" that are > not common knowledge, but should be mentioned. This is not really a > breakthrough in one sense, but that all depends on how "public" you > think the demo is/was. After all, it d

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 preparatio

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

Re: [Vo]:Dawn of a new era: NOT SO FAST

Jones, I often disagree with you, but this time I have to say your suspicions ring a chord. Something doesn't smell right here. Please check me on this, because I'm not sure I've got it right. And feel free to yell at me; I realize I'm going kind of far on not much evidence. * The basic wor

Re: [Vo]:g on Wikipedia erroneously defined

On 01/11/2011 04:43 PM, David Jonsson wrote: > Yes, under "effects of centripetal acceleration" which is by the way > an erroneous title since it should be centrifugal acceleration. Don't think so. In Newtonian terms, the acceleration's centripetal, caused by the centripetal force, which is pro

Re: [Vo]:More on Ni-H LENR

On 01/10/2011 02:01 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:32 PM, peatbog wrote: > > >> Don't lambs eat ivy (kids eat it too)? >> > Wooden shoe? > Heavens no. The stuff's poisonous, the well known but (IMO) toxic old rhyme aside (was the author trying to encourage kids

Re: [Vo]:More on Ni-H LENR

On 01/04/2011 03:16 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > _http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338_ > > This is basically Rossi's blog site and it is attracting the attention > of many international as well as local cranks, due to persistent > rumors of ongoing success from experiments being carrie

Re: [Vo]:Nazi Bell Suggestion

On 12/17/2010 01:32 PM, Harvey Norris wrote: > [...] Unfortunately the choice > of a neon bulb may not satisfy that criteria, so the circuits are being > re-engineered to show ferrite incandescence as a load. Depends on whether you're just trying to fool people, or actually trying to measure s

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC The rise of "substitute" or synthetic machine intelligence

These both sound really cool, and as a workaholic who never turns on a television and only leaves the house once a week (to take out the trash) I had not heard of them before. On 12/16/2010 11:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Artificial intelligence was predicted as early as the 1950s but little > pr

Re: [Vo]:A rotating molecule on a rotating planet appears lighter than a non rotating molecule

Interesting question. I think there must be a flaw here but I sure can't see what it is. The problem I have with it is that it violates the equivalence principle, which, as far as I know, is, for simple mechanics problems, compatible with the Newtonian gravity model, which is what you're dealing

[Vo]:OT: Private industry's small steps into space

SpaceX has successfully orbited, deorbited, and retrieved a space capsule (yesterday, 8 Dec 2010): http://www.spacex.com/updates.php No astronauts on board -- not yet, anyway. They're working hand in hand with NASA so the "private" part of the "private industry" thing is a little fuzzy but none

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State

On 12/02/2010 10:58 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > If gravity propagated at the speed of light, the earth would not orbit > the true position of the sun but where it was 930/1.86 = 500 seconds > ago. And if the sun winked out of existence, the earth would wait > 8-1/3 minutes before flinging off on

Re: [Vo]:MIT progress in plasma fusion

I like this quote from the article. It's /almost/ a blanket condemnation of "super-big-ticket" science as a way to make reasonable progress toward any goal which involves more than the most well-understood engineering solutions: > While larger reactors typically plan all their tests up to two year

Re: [Vo]:Steor has a new promo at their web site

On 11/21/2010 02:47 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > FWIW, > > Steorn's home page recently posted what I believe is a new You-Tube promo > where they have interviewed several engineers from the Orbo Evaluation and > Development Unit. What interested me were comments coming from so

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Architects Gone Wild

First thought was "Skinny stalks ... wicked lot of torque there ... stress cracks!" But it's made of 'light space age materials", which presumably means carbon fiber and Kevlar, aluminum need not apply 'cause it's too dense. So maybe the stalks are thick enough to support the weight. Second was

Re: [Vo]:new water car

Before anyone spends *too* much time trying to figure out /how/ it works, I think it's worth investing a little more effort in wondering *if* it works. It's easy enough to find a conventional explanation for the effect; it's right there on the web page: > Meanwhile, they are working on perfectin

Re: [Vo]:Oil spill in China

On 07/22/2010 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Readers are probably aware of this but another oil spill occurred last > Friday, in Dalian, China. 400,000 gallons of oil were released into > the Yellow Sea. This is the largest oil spill in Chinese history. I guess they haven't spilled much oil, th

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC BP photoshopped photos "from bad to ridiculously bad"

On 07/22/2010 02:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > BP has been caught publishing several photoshopped photos of their > clear-up efforts. Here is one of a helicopter supposedly flying over > the Gulf, with the airport control tower in the top left window: > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/

Re: [Vo]:We should build no machine too big to fail

On 06/19/2010 09:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Apparently, when BP was constructing the first gigantic cap for the > > well, some geologists experts from other oil companies were warning > > them that it would not work becaus

Re: [Vo]:We should build no machine too big to fail

On 06/18/2010 06:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Apparently, when BP was constructing the first gigantic cap for the > well, some geologists experts from other oil companies were warning > them that it would not work because hydrate ice would form and block > the pipe. You'd think they would know

Re: [Vo]:Using Human Volunteers to Witness Quantum Entanglement

On 06/08/2010 11:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > The QM problem here is that a "wave function" is NOT a physical reality. It > is a > mathematical equation which we use to *describe* the state of a system *to the > best of our knowledge at the time*. When we make a real observation of the >

Re: [Vo]:1992 Explosion at SRI

On 06/03/2010 11:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > JR: Then why was the explosion in the head space? And which expert opinion? > > JB: Headspace is not an exculpatory issue - because of the buoyancy of a > sudden and catastrophic release of deuterium from a loaded cathode - it is > actually expected.

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Gigantic sinkhole in Guatemala

On 06/01/2010 04:47 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > Jed sez: > > >> See: >> >> http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/06/01/central.america.storm.deaths/ >> >> This is mind-blowing. I do not see how such a giant hole could form with >> this shape: >> >> a giant, dee

Re: [Vo]:Just for fun...

On 05/21/2010 01:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > On 05/19/2010 09:58 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: >> Put another way, nothing is made with sockets any more. It's all >> hard-soldered. > > Assembly costs! If there's a socket, somebody must put somet

Re: [Vo]:Just for fun...

On 05/19/2010 09:58 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: > --- On Wed, 5/19/10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > wrote: >> Well, I can understand, but I don't really miss that. Heathkits >> were cheap, main point for me at the time, I built quite a few, but >> assembly costs are now so low that a Heathkit to do what

Re: [Vo]:"60 Minutes" report on Gulf Deepwater Horizon Disaster

On 05/21/2010 09:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> That's not what the 60 Minutes report concludes. >> >> The problems with the blowout preventer could possibly be laid to >> incompetence, but that would have been recoverable if BP h

Re: [Vo]:"60 Minutes" report on Gulf Deepwater Horizon Disaster

On 05/20/2010 06:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > This report is excellent. It is amazing how quickly they got to the > heart of the matter. See: > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml > > In common with other major industrial accidents such as Three Mile > Island

Re: [Vo]:More on Prahlad Jani, who claims he does not eat or drink

On 05/17/2010 10:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2010/05/17/wv.yogi.fasting.cnn?hpt=C2 > > > These doctors are taking this way more seriously than I would. Some time > has passed since the story broke. You would think they would have an > an

Re: [Vo]:I turned the matter over to the FBI

Actually, Frank, chances are it was real enough, and someone who appears to be in deep distress probably was. Furthermore that industry uses a lot of slave labor (and I mean the word "slave" literally) and there's a good chance the woman was not there by choice. But the problem with reporting stu

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Google Chrome Speed Test

My browser lets me treat all cookies as session cookies save for specific exceptions. Last I checked Chrome wouldn't let you do *any* neat tricks with cookies. It appeared to have been designed by an advertiser. (But perhaps this has changed...) On 05/09/2010 09:47 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > I

Re: [Vo]:Shanahan paper and Krivit's response

On 05/07/2010 05:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> . . .an idée fixe (French, >> > meaning "a complete meal of several courses, sometimes with choices >> > permitted, offered by a restaurant at a fixed price"). >> >> Only in US French then! > > Yes, that probably is a U.S.

Re: [Vo]:McKubre paper re-OCRed with ClearScan

On 05/04/2010 04:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > McKubre, M.C.H., et al., /Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear > Processes in Deuterated Metals, TR-104195/. 1994, Electric Power > Research Institute. > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf > > This is smaller a

Re: [Vo]:ICCF-3 in LZW lossless format, 392 MB file

On 04/29/2010 04:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Still working on the de-speckle problem. It turns out it de-speckled > away most of the dots on "i" and "j"s and several periods. It needs to > be tweaked. That's what I've almost always found to be the problem with despeckling text. Problem is

Re: [Vo]:ICCF-3 in LZW lossless format, 392 MB file

On 04/28/2010 06:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Correction: it is only 128 MB, not 392. The 392 MB version is JPG > format, and it is strangely blurry. It is supposed to be lossless but it > does not appear to be. Maybe I set it wrong. JPG's never lossless. LZW is lossless; it's sort of a variati

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >