On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Let us take an example…A crack with two faces or two nano-particles
separated by a few nano-meters can separate charge through dipole vibration
with electrons gathering on one side of the crack or nano-particle and
electrons on
it is a surface phenomenon rather than a bulk phenomenon
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Let us take an example…A crack with two faces or two nano-particles
separated by a few
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
The process you have described
Then I ask you to visit this thread and comment. No one had anything
else to say after I talked about PF's meltdown.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77082.html
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
it is a surface phenomenon rather than a
I believe that this type of meltdown occurs when nano-particles become
dense enough and suspended in the hydrogen gas or another dielectric to
support dipole formation and charge separation.
In the Pons Fleishmann incident, the dielectric could have been glass or
concrete.
I suppose that
Ummm, the surface area was not increased by very much, but the bulk was
increased significantly and P-F saw a meltdown result. It points to a bulk
effect rather than a surface effect.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that this type of meltdown
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
If you remember, there was a report that DGT put some glass in their
reactor and the glass melted. It may have happened that nano-particles
melted into the glass and the reaction took off.
***Nope, unfortunately I do
Ed replied:
Yes, the void is very different from the lattice. That is the whole point
to the idea behind the NAE. A nuclear reaction cannot take place in a normal
lattice. A change must take place. This change produces a different
condition I call the NAE. In my model, this NAE is a gap created
If you look at the referenced slide show I supplied, you will see the range
of election-hole systems depicted.
Look at page titled:
*Speculative phase diagram of electron-hole system *
**
*Solids are included. But the Ni/H system is a surface dipole based effect.*
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at
Hello group,
It appears that this email by prof. Guglielmi of the University of Bath
is being circulated in several blogs. In short, the author wonders
whether Levi et al. did with their E-Cat investigation a good job from
an ethical point of view. I don't necessarily agree with the message,
Q. Will you use an oscilloscope on your next test?
A. That depends on Prof. Levi, who specifies the instrumentation.
Rossi: The experimenters were free to use any test equipment of their
choosing.
Testers: That depends on Prof. Levi, who specifies the instrumentation.
Yup, ethical as all get
This is not the first letter of Prof. Guglielmi to LENR researchers
I remember he wrote to Celani and Carpinteri too (can find the letters
but I think it is not worth.
Now he transforms a technical problem (have they checked really
everything, the most fantastic possible tricks of the malefic
It is not so important, it seems that even far from Vancouver, Stanford or
Miami, there are businessmen that cannot take the risk to be
patho-skeptical.
They know the first will be the king...
Question today is how to manage the boom, the competition between startups,
to keep the Battle fair and
In Italy they are discussing another hypothesis regarding the input power:
The hypothesis is, that the load (the three inputs of the black box) were
not connected between the phases and neutral, but between the phases. But,
at the same time, the tensions were measured (by error or to mislead)
The correct picture is here:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/18.64.43
If this hypothesis is true, then the question is are the Professors
all of them stupid or criminal?
I see more and more as the partisan fantasy is the best weapon
in the war against an inconvenient reality.
Peter
He is the one accusing without proof. He is the one being libelous and anti
ethical.
2013/5/28 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com
Hello group,
It appears that this email by prof. Guglielmi of the University of Bath is
being circulated in several blogs. In short, the author wonders
Gulglielmi is confused. He wrote:
You are aware that several alleged technical mistakes have been pointed
out, such as omitting control on DC current input (which has been
acknowledged by Prof. Essén in a recent interview) and assuming that the
output heat is released by a perfect black body . .
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
Rossi: The experimenters were free to use any test equipment of their
choosing.
Testers: That depends on Prof. Levi, who specifies the instrumentation.
Yup, ethical as all get out.
This seems to be a straight out assertion that Levi is lying, and that he
Ed,
I am fine with the hydron covalent ion you suggest and the resonant theory
leading to photon emission but not so on the build up of negative charge or the
physical - electrical confinement you suggest are responsible for the
configuration inside a gap that is at least tens of atoms wide..
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
But knowing that Rossi attaches himself to silly details, it means that the
research part of his business went to his wife, formally.
No, he never handled the business or financial aspect of it as far as I
know. His wife does. He has always dealt with
in cahoots with Rossi translates into an international conspiracy once again.
Are these skeptics now ready to go there?
Does anyone grasp the circularity of argument suggested here? Accept whatever
observations fit your pet theory, ignore the rest and proclaim that you've
uncovered the real
Andrew wrote:
Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the
emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower
(roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then
you've reduced COP to unity.
This assertion is nonsensical. You have forgotten
I said
The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by specifying
3-phase input to the control box. Normal single-phase input would suffice
here, given the power levels.
- Original Message -
From: Claudio C Fiorini
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28,
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
I said
*The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by
specifying 3-phase input to the control box. Normal single-phase input
would suffice here, given the power levels.*
There is nothing difficult about measuring 3-phase power. Power
Nope. Had you been paying attention to the interviews with the testers, you
would have read that quote as #7 in a list of 7. As for the Rossi quote, this
has also been widespread. You couldn't make this stuff up. And I didn't; I
simply repeated written quotes.
As for motives, you seem to miss
So this is an independent test in your book, when you freely acknowledge that
Levi and Rossi have been friends and colleagues for a long time? And you see no
hypocrisy when Rossi says that any equipment may be used, and then Levi
constrains that (following perhaps dicta from Rossi)? This all
I meant to say:
If it is obvious I think you SHOULD speculate about it publicly.
It is bad form to make veiled accusations without a shred of evidence to
back them up. If you know of any reason to distrust Levi or me, I suggest
you reveal it here and now.
I have been attacked by nitwits such as
On May 27, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Kevin, did you actually read this paper (
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf)?
***I'm still making my way through it. It is not one of the links I
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
So this is an independent test in your book, when you freely acknowledge
that Levi and Rossi have been friends and colleagues for a long time?
It is what it is. Call it independent, semi-independent, or a friendly
visit. You can read the details in the
For goodness sake - you must have a completely different view of what the word
independent means than most other people. Chacun a son gout.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
For goodness sake - you must have a completely different view of what the
word independent means than most other people.
If Levi had denied he knows Rossi you might have a point.
If knowing people and being friends with them precludes scientific
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Nope. Had you been paying attention to the interviews with the testers,
you would have read that quote as #7 in a list of 7.
I am aware that Levi is in charge of choosing equipment.
The question here is:
Why did you respond to that by saying Yup, ethical
Would you have us believe that the use of an oscilloscope and/or a spectrum
analyzer was not forbidden for these tests? This has been discussed on this
very forum just this week, and the opposite conclusion was drawn by the folks
here. Either it was forbidden, and what you write is
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Would you have us believe that the use of an oscilloscope and/or a
spectrum analyzer was *not* forbidden for these tests?
There were absolutely not forbidden. I have that from the horse's mouth.
This has been discussed on this very forum just this week,
I think Pekka is right. If the camera samples above the peak wavelength,
and it is a grey body, then an emissivity of 1 seems to be always
conservative.
I'm still not entirely sure how the effective exponent works in the
instrument software, but I did a calculation similar to Pekka's, if a
little
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e,
you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is
calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity.
On May 28, 2013, at 1:58 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Ed replied:
“Yes, the void is very different from the lattice. That is the whole
point to the idea behind the NAE. A nuclear reaction cannot take
place in a normal lattice. A change must take place. This change
produces a different
Look, all I know is what I read. I called out Motl for BS about the emissivity,
and you immediately agreed with me. That's a purely logical analysis. As for
everything else - I can only process to arrive at a separate conclusion when
what I read is conflicting. Then I have to try to sort that
What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable?
Something else?
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013
Wasn't there a similar AC power measurement cock-up on a previous 2011 or
2012 Rossi test?
On 28 May 2013 14:56, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
I said
*The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by
specifying 3-phase input to
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Now he transforms a technical problem (have they checked really
everything, the most fantastic possible tricks of the malefic Rossi?) in
ethical problem -are they accomplices of Rossi in his criminal activity.
I think
Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them
again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a
theory about how they're done. Should I give that out?
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Andrew
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
These are not mistakes.
1. It is not possible to do one test in which you check for every
skeptical notion that people might come up, such as DC input. You have to
do a series of tests with different power meters.
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Look, all I know is what I read. I called out Motl for BS about the
emissivity, and you immediately agreed with me. That's a purely logical
analysis.
As for everything else - I can only process to arrive at a separate
conclusion when what I read is
The cable is what connects the control box to the device. It appears from the
report that they did not examine it for anomalies. So, are the researchers
free to replace it with one of their own, or not?
The March dummy calibration run, according to the report, involved placing
voltage probes
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be saying that Levi cannot be trusted because he is is friend
of Rossi's. If you automatically distrust anyone who is a friend of
Rossi's, or has worked with Rossi, or assisted him, then you accuse a broad
OK Fran, we are getting closer to a mutual understanding. Let me go
into more detail.
The gap creates a separation of charge because the electron charge on
the metal atoms on each wall are not being offset by nearby atoms, as
is the case in the lattice. Consequently, like all clean
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You are saying, in effect, that a professor is deliberately destroying his
own reputation, in a way that will certainly be discovered, with no
possible benefit or profit. This seems unlikely to me.
I don't think
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
--- On Tue, 5/28/13, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
To:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If knowing people and being friends with them precludes scientific
independence than no such independence exists.
I think everyone agrees that Levi's relationship is more than simply
knowing Rossi. If his claims were
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
So this is an independent test in your book, when you freely
acknowledge that Levi and Rossi have been friends and colleagues for a long
time?
It is what it is. Call it
Please provide a citation for this.
From: Joshua Cude
There's nothing magic about fooling a device like the PCE-830 with its very
small frequency range. Those videos by Tinsel Koala show how both clamp-on
and in-line ammeters can be fooled to read zero at the input, while
providing
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Would you have us believe that the use of an oscilloscope and/or a
spectrum analyzer was *not* forbidden for these tests?
There were absolutely not forbidden. I have that from the
For the 3rd time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Please provide a citation for this.
** **
** **
*From:* Joshua Cude
** **
There's nothing
Yes, triphase is used much in commercial and industrial building, because
it is more efficient to transfer power (less coper, better AC engine)...
Rectifier also are more efficient in triphase (less ripple).
Beside to be clear triphase power meter are roughly simply some Digital
signal processor
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
I said
*The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by
specifying 3-phase input to the control box. Normal single-phase input
would suffice here, given the power
Gentlemen:
This argument can't be won or lost because at this point fraud can't be proven.
There is no evidence of fraud even if that possibility has not been excluded
by the tests,
What seems clear is that the measure of output energy was reasonable in the two
tests. The input measure of
2013/5/28 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Would you have us believe that the use of an oscilloscope and/or a
spectrum analyzer was *not* forbidden for these tests?
There were absolutely not forbidden. I have that from the horse's mouth.
That is
Joshua, this is exactly my rationale and I concur on all three points, which
I've already made separately here.
I am honestly unsure how Tinsel Koala does it. Nevertheless, I've posted my
proposed solution to his Comments. Do you know how he does it?
Andrew
- Original Message -
Incompetence is a wholly inadequate tool with which to rule out fraud.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Alain Sepeda
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
2013/5/28 Jed
Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory too, but the point is,
many people without a theory would still not believe that the cheese
actually supplies the power. And such people could nevertheless design an
experiment that excludes tricks.
So, it's not necessary to know how Rossi may be
You and I are thinking along the same lines. And yes, the real modulation of
the output power by the pulses has to be acknowledged. As I've already
mentioned, if there's any power being snuck in, it would have to be occuring
during the pulse OFF state - i.e. 65% of the cycle time.
Andrew
This is meaningless crap. You should be ashamed to be associated with it.
At first, this looked like it could be the only thing of real substance that
Cude has presented in the entire thread, but it turns out to be an admitted
prank, in which the prankster adds:
In all seriousness, I don't
I also am pretty sure that most here haven't understood Duncan's diode fudge.
The control box is quite capable of switching diodes in and out of circuit,
synchronously with the power pulses. Although you're not allowed to look inside
the control box (this will reveal the secret waveform?
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:47:48 AM
I think Pekka is right. If the camera samples above the peak
wavelength, and it is a grey body, then an emissivity of 1 seems to
be always conservative.
...
So, the only way the camera could give an
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
**
This argument can't be won or lost because at this point fraud can't be
proven. There is no evidence of fraud even if that possibility has not
been excluded by the tests,
What seems clear is that the measure of
Rossi confuses and annoys many people by being both open and secretive at
the same time.
Harry
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Nope. Had you been paying attention to the interviews with the testers,
you would have read that quote as #7 in a list of 7. As
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
At first, this looked like it could be the only thing of real substance
that Cude has presented in the entire thread, but it turns out to be an
admitted prank,
**
That's the point. A prank here is a deception there.
Andrew:
IIRC, one of the team said that the 'waveform' could be seen on the power
analyzer screen. so in a sense, they had, albeit, a limited oscilloscope.
Perhaps that was considered enough for the given stage of testing.
Most all instruments today use fast ADCs and digital sampling to
With conspiracy theories* the plausibility goes down as the number of
participants goes up. Since Levi alone is responsible for the
instrumentation -- at least from my recollection of some of the statements
-- and Levi has long been associated with Rossi, a Levi-Rossi conspiracy is
where the
From: Joshua Cude
Most skeptics are convinced that if he really had what he claims, there
would not be niggling discussions.
Then they have not considered the obvious. Unless there is fraud at the
felony level, then Rossi has probably discovered something valid, and
incredibly
Ed,
It may only be semantics or interpretation of what catalytic
action really is but what you are calling an energy sink that an H+ ion can
fall into by forming a hydroton is also defying COE.. particularly if it has to
repeat this endless reaction many times to dissipate the
On May 28, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Ed,
It may only be semantics or interpretation of what
catalytic action really is but what you are calling an energy sink
that an H+ ion can fall into by forming a hydroton is also defying
COE..
Fran, formation of
Tell us, if you'd be so kind, since you have the ear of the horse's mouth,
whether the researchers were allowed, and/or would be allowed in the future, to
break apart and examine the cable between the control box and the device?
Why would they be? That would reveal trade secrets and IP not
Joshua,
Please take a careful look at the modulated output power that we discussed the
other day. You will notice a strong correlation between the input power as
registered on the power meter and the shape of the output power.
It is evident that the output power is rising for the same amount
*Apparently you believe a BEC will form without causing LENR and its
presence can be detected by shining laser light on the material. Is this
what you propose?*
It is just amazing, but it looks like LENR in the Ni/H is an optical based
reaction. A laser is not required to supply the photons
this is not incompetence, this is risk analysis.
Rossi knowing that the testers could measure something like DC of HF, could
not have tried that trick.
maybe is this off your competence. Too much psychology...
Magicians don't use a trick that can be easily found, and either :
- they don't use
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
** **
** **
Then they have not considered the obvious. Unless there is fraud at the
felony level, then Rossi has probably discovered something valid, and
incredibly important to Society - but it is not ready for
I agree with you Alain. We have a few new members posting a lot of non sense
on the list as a game. They should be considered trolls since that is how they
are behaving and I hope that eventually they are banned unless they cease.
There are groups that make a game out of flooding good sites
what ever does the clamp, if bellow 32kHz, the power meter catch it and
compute the real power.
modern powermeter (and even old analog like the one I used in the 80s)
don't care of the shape of the signal. it make the integral of the U*I
product over time...
only problem is bandwidth, high and
There is no way to know why 3 phase power is being used in this situation.
Perhaps the latest design for the complete system that has many units
associated has that requirement.
The assumption that this is done to trick the scientists is laughable. You
would think that a good power meter
These can be shown a hundred times and it would not be important to the present
condition. The skeptics know that there is no way that this is being done by
using a tiny bit of understanding. I suspect that Joshua realizes this since
he appears to be far more knowledgeable than the rest of
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Please take a careful look at the modulated output power that we discussed
the other day. You will notice a strong correlation between the input
power as registered on the power meter and the shape of the output power.
Alan Fletcher reported a correction by Levi et al. They did measure DC
after all. This might be lost in another thread, so I thought I would copy
it here to a new thread.
May 28, 2013 at 2:26 AM
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
So, we are left with
a) Fraud by Rossi and/or those in cahoots with him
b) DC
Those could be the same, but DC is too specific. The point is that the
input was inadequately measured, and given the very restricted
Joshua, I hope that you will attempt to find the truth instead of continue to
play games.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, May
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Show us some real evidence instead of BS.
How can there be any real evidence of deception when all we have is a paper
with words and pictures, and no way to check their claims?
Incorrect claims in science are
Thanks for reposting this.
It is huge in importance to a few fence straddlers - and perhaps will
thin-out some of the negativity of yesterday.
Having hundred of mostly repetitive posting to deal with - means that most
of them get scanned and important details can be missed.
You are letting your emotions influence your thinking. Try to keep an open
mind for a change and let yourself accept that LENR might actually be real. If
the evidence points in that direction, then follow it instead of imagining big
monsters hiding under your bed.
Dave
-Original
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
You are letting your emotions influence your thinking. Try to keep an
open mind for a change
No, that's you. Cold fusion would benefit everyone, so emotionally I'd like
it to be true, but I'm rational.
You, on the
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
**
*From:* Jed Rothwell
** **
Alan Fletcher reported a correction by Levi et al. They did measure DC
after all.
“In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc
(since the clamps
I think I posted this previously, but Joshua appears to be the chosen one...
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Albert Einstein
Stewart
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
As I have explained to you many times, a diode inside the control box can not
fake out the power meter connected at the socket. This is elementary and
should not be repeated by you or any of the skeptics. Why not perform a spice
simulation if you are an EE as you claim to lay this to rest
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
*The cable* is what connects the control box to the device. It
appears from the report that they did not examine it for anomalies.
They did not examine it. That would reveal trade secrets, as noted in the
report.
So, are the researchers free to
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I posted this previously, but Joshua appears to be the chosen
one...
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Albert Einstein
I
Axil,
Please clarify something for me concerning BEC behavior. Are you convinced
that a BEC will always lead to fusion when it is formed?
Would a BEC produced at near absolute zero be expected to fuse? If not, what
is the push required to make it happen?
I assume we are speaking of a BEC
Joshua:
Don't you find the following scenario just a little disconcerting.
For 24 years the scientific community has been certain (to the point of
claiming that Cold Fusion was pseudoscience that the anomalous heat found by
P F was delusion. They now have tests clearly demonstrating the
For All:
Don't get pulled into JC's usual methods of casting doubt. for people
unfamiliar with his tactics, he seems objective and factual, however, you
need to follow the threads carefully since one of the common tactics is to
take something like the 3-phase power issue, and describe a
Actually I believe it refers to the Judgers of Truth and Knowledge like it
reads.
I have followed the Rossi saga for two years as well as DGT and many other
research articles and papers. I am convinced there is anomalous heat there
and possibly endothermic vacuum at times. Many of the
As to why 3-phase power for the FIRST test?
The reactors have been designed for industrial use, and to be a part of the
1MW shipping container unit. Do you really think that they are going to
plug that thing into a single-phase outlet!! That is laughable. No, they
are going to use 3-phase
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
