Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
In another post you said Levi will soon get to see inside the cell.
I didn't think Rossi would let anyone (except those involved in the
manufacturing?)see
inside a cell until his patent was granted. Does this mean he expects his
patent
will
be
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
OMG I going to be sick … with laughter.
This is much better than SNL ever was ….
Cough, cough … yup it’s gotta be that micro-super-nova, [slaps forehead]
how could we have missed it !!
We didn't miss it. It was discussed here at length. You
Regarding this micro-super-nova, note that I said this is improbable
meaning I do not believe it. I entertain the hypothesis, which Beene finds
entertaining. So far, three improbable ideas have been proposed:
1. Cu amounting to 10% of the cell volume migrates in through stainless
steel walls.
From: Jed Rothwell
* You proposed a preposterous theory that different super-nova produce
elements different isotopic ratios.
This is not a theory. It is known fact. It is not my proposal. It is seen
every day in cosmology. Every supernova is different and even in any one,
like the one
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Ø Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the
1940s, would know that is wrong.
You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you
must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data?
See the
From: Jed Rothwell
* Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the
1940s, would know that is wrong.
JB: You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you
must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data?
* JR: See the work of
This very interesting paper
http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~srf/isotopes/li1.pdf is all about isotope
ratios varying from region to region.
Sent from my iPhone.
On Apr 30, 2011, at 15:56, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
From: Jed Rothwell
Ø Anyone reviewing the
I would like to reset the tenor of this recent discussion - back towards our
jointly shared goal on this forum of finding the truth about this important
breakthrough of A. Rossi.
I have come down too hard on Jed, who we all know is articulate and bright
and seldom this wrong. However, there
Whew!
T
See this interesting discussion on a sceptic page in Sweden:
http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2t=4#p11
--
GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit
gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
Angela Kemmler wrote:
See this interesting discussion on a sceptic page in Sweden:
http://www.e-catalyzer.se/viewtopic.php?f=2t=4#p11
It is a little hard for me to tell which section you are pointing to,
but the part about the pump is incorrect. The flow rate was confirmed by
leaving the
The message below that from Ekstrom says:
As the real water throughput was something around 0.6 * 12.1 = 7.3
l/hr, or 121 ml/min. . . .
That is incorrect. The real water throughput was 292 ml/min, according
to the weight scale and the water collected in the liter cylinder.
These people
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
Rossi was asked in January 2011 which type of pump was
used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model. His
response was clear. He said Levi brought the pump and the rest of the
stuff, and he does not know a thing about it. That's
Jones Beene wrote:
used, but could not or was not willing to tell the pump model. His
response was clear. He said Levi brought the pump and the rest of the
stuff, and he does not know a thing about it. That's what he said on his blog,
and what he told me. *I find that reassuring.*
Do you
Jones Beene wrote:
and Levi's has not presented his notes about the beginning and ending weight -
which could have been simply human error - but yet it is nevertheless
reassuring that so little firm evidence can be presented in support of
extraordinary claims?
Anything might be human
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
and Levi has not presented his notes about the beginning and ending weight -
which could have been simply human error - but yet it is nevertheless
reassuring that so little firm evidence can be presented in support of
extraordinary claims?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
JR: Anything might be human error. But noting changes on a weight scale
is easy. I do not think human error is likely in this instance.
Given a well known corollary to Murphy's Law that the probability of an
error is inversely proportional to the
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
If he were still using copper, why would he say it is stainless steel?
Duh! Of course he would lie about it. He does not want replication but does
like to be in the Media Spotlight, so he tries to act like he is being
forthright, on occasion.
Again,
From: Jed Rothwell
JB - I would never have guessed it would get to this on a forum which is
supposed to be focused on finding the truth. Sad.
JR. You are certain it is the truth that Kullander is senile?
That is not what I said. I am certain that he claimed the Rossi reaction was
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
JR. You are certain it is the truth that Kullander is senile?
That is not what I said. I am certain that he claimed the Rossi reaction
was nuclear because an extraordinary amount of copper was found.
Here is what you said:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:12:49 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
I am certain
that this means that the copper CANNOT be the result of a nuclear process.
..it could be if Rossi enhanced the Ni62/64 isotopes as he claims to have done.
(however I must admit that I find Rossi's claim
From: Jed Rothwell
* but if it turns out the copper has natural isotopes and yet it is a
transmutation product . . . that will be a fact, and you will be wrong.
Right . and if frogs grow wings they will not bump their butts on every
leap.
Do you realize how silly you are
Robin wrote:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:12:49 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
I am certain
that this means that the copper CANNOT be the result of a nuclear process.
..it could be if Rossi enhanced the Ni62/64 isotopes as he claims to have
done.
(however I must
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:50:57 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
[snip]
hmmm...If the copper results from migration rather than from transmutation the
contents of the reactor would weigh relatively more than you would expect from
transmutation.
Harry
That depends on what you
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Ø but if it turns out the copper has natural isotopes and yet it is a
transmutation product . . . that will be a fact, and you will be wrong.
Right … and if frogs grow wings they will not bump their butts on every
leap.
Do you realize how
mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I am certain
that this means that the copper CANNOT be the result of a nuclear process.
..it could be if Rossi enhanced the Ni62/64 isotopes as he claims to have
done.
(however I must admit that I find Rossi's claim a bit far fetched.)
I find it far fetched too.
From: Jed Rothwell
Do you realize how silly you are sounding on every incremental try - with
this nonsense?
* I know how improbable this is. I know it just as well as you do. So do
EK. However, unlike you, we will wait to see what the data reveals. No
matter how improbable it may seem, it
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
If that were true, then why did no Kullander say up front, “yes I know that
copper can migrate easily . . .
I cannot speak for him, but as far as I know copper *cannot* easily migrate
through the walls of a stainless steel pressure vessel. A little might
From: Jed Rothwell
* It is hard to compare improbabilities, but that sounds almost as
improbable as copper transmuting as if it were inside a micro-super-nova,
such that it comes out with the natural isotopes.
OMG I going to be sick . with laughter.
This is much better than SNL ever
Jed Rothwell wrote:
It does not matter what the patent says. The larger cell is steel on the
outside. They will soon find out if it is steel on the inside as well. If it
is,
we have a mystery. If it turns out to be copper, that will explain things. In
that event it will be surprising that
30 matches
Mail list logo
