Well...what I said is my view of the effect of the documentall the
players in this have different goals and objectivesBarnhart's job is to
scan the horizon and warn other people in DoD of potential, uh, issues.
...the co-authors of the document have different goals objectives, as you
On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
What I found particularly interesting:
If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several
modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive?
LOL! DIA and DOD interest. Where's DOE?
A belly-buster, IMO.
Cheeze!
See:
Barnhart, B., et al., Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on
Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance 2009,
Defense Intelligence Agency.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf
This is an annoying document. There is a duplicated footnote, the
[Here is the corrected text from the DIA report,
ABBYY version. Unfortunately, this is not the
underlying text in the version I uploaded. That
has more OCR errors. I believe there are no OCR
errors here, but I have not checked closely. - JR]
UNCLASSIFIED
Defense Intelligence Agency
Defense
Is the DIA a parody of the CIA?
harry
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 8:00:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
What I found particularly
From: Horace Heffner
If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could
LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? It is ironic isn't it?
CF dismissed by DOE and the patent office, and yet potentially important to
DOD. However, I think the potential for
Mark Iverson wrote:
Jed, then you've got some extremely liberal definition of 'insider'!
I was using the skeptics' definition. As I said, one of them called
Duncan a charlatan because he concluded that Energetics Technology
is correctly measuring 0.8 W in, ~20 W out. Any sane expert in
Many thanks, Jed.
Would there be any utility to taking your text and adding some formatting to
resemble the actual report? (I'm not suggesting that you must be the one to
do it.)
Lawry
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17,
My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some
experimental/theoretical research
on the subject; LENR in this case.
Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition.
No, I disagree. Has he set up a lab and done some experiments? No. Has he
delivered a
2009/11/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
[Here is the corrected text from the DIA report, ABBYY version.
Unfortunately, this is not the underlying text in the version I uploaded.
That has more OCR errors. I believe there are no OCR errors here, but I have
not checked closely. - JR]
Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
Would there be any utility to taking your text and adding some formatting to
resemble the actual report? (I'm not suggesting that you must be the one to
do it.)
It will preserve the formatting if I export it to Microsoft Word or
HTML. If I am going to go to the
I informed the author there are some spelling errors, and footnotes
#11 and #14 are the same. I asked her to provide another copy of the
paper in text Acrobat format. So maybe I will get a copy the easy way.
Thanks again to Michel Jullian for finding human spelling errors:
Fleischman
Spzak
Mark Iverson wrote:
Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition.
No, I disagree. Has he set up a lab and done some experiments? No.
Yes, he has now. That's my point.
I am pleased he has!
My point was that at the time of the 60-Minutes piece, he most
certainly was NOT .
At 07:37 AM 11/17/2009, you wrote:
Is the DIA a parody of the CIA?
profound question
Mark Jed sez:
...
Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the diehard
(pathological) skeptics like Park; its to persuade the average Science or
Nature reader, the average researcher . . .
That's true, and it is important. There is no point in trying to convince
the
This is a perennial subject. I suppose that cold
fusion bombs are probably not possible, for the
reasons given below, but I do not think suppose can roll them out definitively.
First, the reasons why they may be possible:
1. Several cold fusion devices have exploded.
2. Martin Fleischmann
Jones,
I believe you meant Robert Carroll, not Robert Forward.
--- On Tue, 11/17/09, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 7:47 AM
I wrote:
I know for a fact that our military bureaucracy is not that smart
when it comes to cold fusion. This is an observation, not
speculation. . . . This is also true of the Japanese bureaucracy
under the previous two Prime Ministers.
I meant Cabinets. Although I am pretty sure the
I understand your objections to the idea of a CF bomb. However, I must cite
the history of the laser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion
The issue is timing. This is an issue from comedy to fission to fusion.
Once the process is well understood, creating a synchronous reaction
The interesting implication of the Arata-Zhang experiment for this subject,
is the extraordinary claimed loading ratio of over 3:1 (deuterons to metal
atoms).
But the CFB concept might work as well or better with protium. Compelling
evidence has been found for the occurrence of superfluidity in
On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is a perennial subject. I suppose that cold fusion bombs are
probably not possible, for the reasons given below, but I do not
think suppose can roll them out definitively.
First, the reasons why they may be possible:
1. Several cold
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Of course, one might opine that Catch-22 you cannot get to that degree of
loading when you are near absolute zero, since the fusion will have already
started!
And if you suddenly allow the temperature to increase, the
Special delivery. A bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCape0yPrus
harry
__
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot
with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch
Land shark!
Terry
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Special delivery. A bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCape0yPrus
harry
__
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is
Terry Blanton wrote:
I understand your objections to the idea of a CF bomb. However, I must cite
the history of the laser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion
The issue is timing. This is an issue from comedy to fission to fusion.
Once the process is well understood,
I forgot to mention a critical factor. Heat stimulation of cold fusion
reactions seems to occur remarkably slowly. Fleischmann and Biberian both
told me they used a heat pulse to trigger the boil off reaction. It worked
something like this:
Turn up electrolysis power for 3 minutes. The
He has??? Wow, that's very good news...
Do you know if he's just setting up, or have they had this lab up and running
for awhile?
Have they had any encouraging results, like exploding experiments! :-)
You were right the first time... Blowhards.
Actually, that's way too gentle a term
- Original Message
From: Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 4:07:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
At 07:37 AM 11/17/2009, you wrote:
Is the DIA a parody of the CIA?
profound
28 matches
Mail list logo
