Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-25 Thread Mark Jurich
surprise or big dud ? Yes, we need to rig the MFMP “Mouse Trap” to see lower in energy and resolve it: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305310 From: Bob Higgins Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ? This is conceptually what we

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-25 Thread Mark Jurich
Yes, we need to rig the MFMP “Mouse Trap” to see lower in energy and resolve it: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305310 From: Bob Higgins Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ? This is conceptually what we are thinking

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-25 Thread Mark Jurich
: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ? Great find Axil. Did you already forward it to MFMP? It's interesting that they use Boron as a neutron shield too. That might be important for them to know too. On 25 Feb 2016, at 05:25, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: http://newenergytimes.

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-24 Thread Mark Jurich
rgy region. For those trying to follow Figure 3, the curves are mislabeled in the key/legend. The lowest plot is the subtracted one. - Mark Jurich From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ? From: Axil Axil h

Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-24 Thread Axil Axil
ric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:58 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ? > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The Geiger Counter

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-24 Thread Mark Jurich
the disappointment of many about what was done with the announcements here. All I can say is, “Hang in there.” We are ... We’re not finished with this yet and there’s more to come. - Mark Jurich From: Eric Walker Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Big

Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-24 Thread Eric Walker
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mark Jurich wrote: The Geiger Counter was essentially brain dead during this part of the run > and also with a post Ba calibration on the low end... The detected > radiation wasn’t shown to be sourced from the active cell. I am a big fan of

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-24 Thread Mark Jurich
this down in the next run, which most likely will be a pure replication attempt, but a better mouse trap to catch this mouse. - Mark Jurich From: Eric Walker Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 7:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ? On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12

Re: [Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-24 Thread Eric Walker
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Mark Jurich wrote: Right now, we are working on beefing up the Geiger Counting Sensitivity, > Coincidence Detection and obtaining another detector to confirm. It’s only > one instrument, we need another to confirm. Temporary High Voltage >

[Vo]:Re: Big surprise or big dud ?

2016-02-24 Thread Mark Jurich
Folks, it is true that Bob G might have overhyped this, but you have to realize the number of years he has devoted to this and the knowledge he has acquired over those years. I do not blame him for doing it. Yes, the Spectrum Result has to be verified/replicated. We (Team MFMP) did not see