Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

[Steven Krivit]

At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote:

Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?


I don't think he would want to.

Have you been following the thread more closely than I?

Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a 
conference presentation or is it just this blog site that is made to look 
like a journal?


And what kind of idiot uses this domain name 
http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com


when one without hyphens is available and has NEVER been registered?
http://whois.domaintools.com/journalofnuclearphysics.com
(I'm sure someone will soon grab this domain, it's a great domain name)

SOMEBODY registered and used this name knowing full well that no such 
journal in the English language existed but that the Soviet Journal of 
Nuclear Physics does not have a Web site. 
http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=issn&query=0038-5506


Whoever registered the name is probably an American because of the 
California registration. It has been registered through a proxy service 
that keeps the identity of the domain owner private.


By using a name with hyphens, and of a similar journal that does not have 
its own web site, they avoid a direct confrontation with the actual 
journal, if it still exists.
But the journal may have been renamed to Physics of Atomic Nuclei 
http://www.phy.ornl.gov/divops/library/holdings.html


I wonder which of the people involved in journal-of-nuclear-physics.com are 
familiar with the Russian science scene and which of them might be 
conversant in Russian and who has been a frequent co-author on Russian LENR 
papers?


s

Re: [Vo]:Imagine that!

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> What will become of snail mail? :(

Who uses it now?  A book of 20 stamps lasts me 3 months.

T

Re: [Vo]:Imagine that!

[Harry Veeder]

What will become of snail mail? :(



>
>From: Steven Krivit 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 2:55:44 PM
>Subject: [Vo]:Imagine that!
>
>>
>Can you believe this???
>
>>"The
>>Federal Communications Commission is proposing an ambitious 10-year
>plan that will reimagine the nation’s media and technology priorities by
>establishing high-speed Internet as the country’s dominant communication
>network."
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/business/media/13fcc.html?th&emc=th
>


  __
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 to New Mail 
today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca

Re: [Vo]:Santilli, Ni-H, neutroids, atherinos, deflation fusion, and strange matter

[Horace Heffner]

On Mar 14, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Francis X Roarty wrote:


Horace,

They are discussing same on HSG presently.

Regards

Fran


[snip postings from HSG group]

Thanks for posting the info!

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

[Michel Jullian]

Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?

2010/3/14, Steven Krivit :
> Ladies and gentlemen,
>
> The truth is, I plead, to a large degree, ignorance of this Focardi&Rossi
> matter.
>
> It had been originally brought to my attention as a patent, and then I
> pointed out to the person it was merely a patent application and I said,
> "So what, don't bother me."
>
> Even granted patents don't mean that the devices work as stated. Just look
> at Seth Putterman's patent for sonofusion.
>
> So here's my question for all you science hounds: Have Focardi&Rossi
> actually published a real paper or presented one at a science conference?
>
> Has the Focardi&Rossi paper/work been vetted, in any way, in the formal
> science channel or has it just been hyped up on some bogus Web site that is
> masquerading as some sort of Journal?
>
> "Journal or Nuclear Physics"? Really??? Can someone please tell me
> something about this?
> http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
>
> And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly
> representing the entire "DoD", is involved with this?
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2
>
> And isn't there some mention in the paper of this having to do with the
> "DoD" yet the paper provides no details?
>
> And a "Board of Advisers" comprising the key authors of this "paper?" Is
> this a con or what?
>
> Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone is not running a false flag to
> discredit Ni-H work.
>
> Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone did not go to Focardi and Rossi
> and represent himself as the "DoD" and thereby test and validate inflated
> claims to set them up for a fall.
>
> Steve
>
>
>

[Vo]:Santilli, Ni-H, neutroids, atherinos, deflation fusion, and strange matter

[Francis X Roarty]

Horace,   


They are discussing same on HSG presently.


Regards


Fran


 
 Postby JohnEB
  on March 12th, 2010, 5:21 pm 


Andrew:
To add to the confusion, we have the work of R. M. Santilli. He seems to
like an asymmetric time. See:

http://www.magnegas.com/index.html
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/sant

... eries.html

JohnEB
  

 

Posts: 1682

Joined: December 22nd, 2008, 12:42 pm

View of GUT-CP: Supporter

Top
 

  _  


Re:
  Alternate Theory of Pycnodeuterium


 
 Postby meulenberg
  on March 12th, 2010, 10:26 pm 

JohnEB wrote:Andrew:
To add to the confusion, we have the work of R. M. Santilli. He seems to
like an asymmetric time. See:

http://www.magnegas.com/index.html
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/sant

... eries.html

JohnEB, Thank you for the timely reference. I had encountered Santilli's
website before in a different context, been interested, but ran out of time
to look into it. 

Would you interpret http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf to be an
independent production (and therefore verification) of deep-level hydrinos?
Santilli's use of the word neutroid (instead of hydrino) and lack of
reference to Mill' (or to Naudts') work seems to indicate complete
independence from BLP or LENR work. The fact that this is a verification of
a prior researcher's results (Borghi, 1969) would also indicate that this is
not a random event - or a con job. 

Santilli's explanation (from Borghi's hypothesis?) is remarkably similar to
my suggestion for a possible decay channel (leading to transmutation) in the
cold fusion process for H-H or D-D interactions in the solid state. 

It looks as if things might be coming together!

AndrewM

meulenberg
  

 

Posts: 92

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 8:20 am

View of GUT-CP: Fence-Sitter

Top
 

  _  


Re:
  Alternate Theory of Pycnodeuterium


 
 Postby JohnEB
  on March 13th, 2010, 7:26 am 

Andrew said:

Would you interpret http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf to be an
independent production (and therefore verification) of deep-level hydrinos?
Santilli's use of the word neutroid (instead of hydrino) and lack of
reference to Mill' (or to Naudts') work seems to indicate complete
independence from BLP or LENR work. The fact that this is a verification of
a prior researcher's results (Borghi, 1969) would also indicate that this is
not a random event - or a con job. 


I agree Andrew. One thing is certain - we have been immersed in the
"scientifically pathetic" for a long time.

JohnEB
  

 

Posts: 1682

Joined: December 22nd, 2008, 12:42 pm

View of GUT-CP: Supporter

Top
 

  _  


Re:
  Alternate Theory of Pycnodeuterium


 
 Postby underante
  on March 13th, 2010, 9:12 am 

meulenberg wrote: . . . Santilli's use of the word neutroid (instead of
hydrino) and lack of reference to Mill' (or to Naudts') work seems to
indicate complete independence from BLP or LENR work . . .
AndrewM



as it so happens, in a previous version of this paper (august 2006) still
available for download from the arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229v1
, reference is in fact made to dr mills endeavours in this area.

despite this om