Re: [Vo]:MFMP nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
Is this a joke? Actual Nobel nominations are not public. Perhaps garbled by translation, it seems the Professor mentioned is merely planning to nominate MFMP for the Peace Prize? By the same thought process, he could nominate me for one as well, and I would have the same chance i.e. zero. From http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/ Are the nominations made public? The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize.
[Vo]:OT- NSA Spying
Greetings Undisclosed Recipients: http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/0f/e8/24/0fe824491f11275dab29bc9e53a65b13.jpg Ron Kita, Chiralex Fourth of July is for Freedom
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 10:13 pm Subject: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum To really understand LENR, we must really understand how the vacuum works. There is a new pile of dots involved in this effort that must be strung together before a coherent picture of the vacuum can take shape. It seems that the vacuum takes its behavior from what is flowing in it. This is what makes LENR so complicated. When many different items compete for the management of the vacuums behavior, things really get complicated. One of the dots that has just shown up is the data analysis from Supernova 1987a. --- http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicist-slower-thought.html Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought --- Snip Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours. Scientists at the time attributed it to a likelihood that the photons were actually from another source. But what if that wasn't what it was, Franson wonders, what if light slows down as it travels due to a property of photons known as vacuum polarization—where a photon splits into a positron and an electron, for a very short time before recombining back into a photon. That should create a gravitational differential, he notes, between the pair of particles, which, he theorizes, would have a tiny energy impact when they recombine—enough to cause a slight bit of a slowdown during travel. If such splitting and rejoining occurred many times with many photons on a journey of 168,000 light years, the distance between us and SN 1987A, it could easily add up to the 4.7 hour delay, he suggests. EndSnip A beam of light may be a series of discontinuous transfers of energy packets between virtual particles created by the presence of the photon as it travels along. A larger packet of photon energy carried by the vacuum means more virtual particles are produced by the vacuum. An energetic photon must fight through a blizzard of vacuum self-catalyzed virtual particles as it matches its way through space. Neutrinos, on the other hand, produce not virtual particles as it travels along and it can make good time at the supposed speed of light. I suspect that what the vacuum actually does in the way of producing virtual particles is based on the kinds of zero point particles that are floating inside of it. If LENR is ultimately caused by the injection of energy into the vacuum, what the vacuum will do in response can be very complicated based on the kind of stuff that it contains.
RE: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Interesting idea. Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Any light that originates as a result of absorption and then re-emitted would surely move at the speed of 'c' relative to the scattering source. Dave -Original Message- From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:31 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Interesting idea. Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave ...Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
There has to be a mathematical link. The amount of correctness in predicting chemical and fysical properties is just too amazing from both of them. And you claim the theories cannot be linked. E.g one of them is junk. Well mills theory is easy verified. No one have shown errors in those calculations from basic orbital and plain electrodynamics. Then QED has to be junk for more than two bodies else you have to clarify what you base your assumption of. The orbitals of the source terms are indeed spherical if I remembered correctly. But there are variations of properties on the sphere that are not spherical. If the link is some kind of transform, those orbitals could very well result. Of cause every analogy is halting. But mills is expected to explain and match all what is known and when people doesn't find their pet described they shout fool without actually trying to understand and take in all what does work, not in a complicated hard to grasp theory, but a simple and natural one, the answer of the pet question is probably a small modification, a small explanation away, that just is not in print yet. Keppler had a very simple theory of the observations, but couldn't match the very tweaked and refined through data fitting a clumpsy theory of earth centricity. He needed to spend another 10 years to match all of the known knowledge by himself. Therefore I still find the analogy good enough. But mills has a much harder task ahead. To match all corners of our quantum theory. That's stupid let PhD get some grants to help that quest. On Jun 30, 2014 12:26 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 29, 2014, at 14:14, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities for the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual. I doubt they are dual. The electron shell model says that with increasing orbital angular momentum there is a change in the shape of the orbital; e.g., the s, p and d orbitals. These orbital shapes have been incorporated into solid state physics to help explain the emergence of various orders that are observed -- superconduction, ferromagnetism, etc. To the best of my knowledge, Mills describes a single orbital shape -- the orbitsphere. If there is only the orbitsphere, solid state physicists had better go back to the drawing board. Mills's theory sounds like a radical departure from known behavior of bound electrons rather than a description that is dual. It took keppler 10 years of hard work to get his theory into acceptance. I don't think Mills's situation is analogous to that of Kepler.
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
As I have pointed out before on several occasions, a continuous charge function that is in motion does not produce a far field radiation pattern. The shape apparently assumed by Mills would not radiate due to this condition, but it is not necessary for the motion of the distributed charges to be spherical. The standard d, p, s, etc. would also not radiate as long as the charge does not reside at any one point in space as it moves. An electron that acts like a point source of electric field should radiate if it accelerates such as would occur in a circular orbit. If it is instead a continuous function this would not be a problem. The best example is to look at the behavior of a DC current loop. Each tiny section of the loop will radiate in the far field as the charge associated with that point moves in a circle. But, the continuous nature of the loop allows for a balanced out far field with regard to radiation. The magnetic field does not cancel out in the same manner which would also allow a continuous electron model to have a magnetic field, but not radiate RF or other forms of electromagnetic energy. I feel that it is important to not restrict our thinking to perfect spherical orbitals since that is not necessary. Any 3 dimensional shape will work as long as the net charge is constant at every point on the surface with time. Motion of the charges is OK as long as a new one comes along to replace the one that moves out of location. Think DC current. Dave -Original Message- From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment There has to be a mathematical link. The amount of correctness in predicting chemical and fysical properties is just too amazing from both of them. And you claim the theories cannot be linked. E.g one of them is junk. Well mills theory is easy verified. No one have shown errors in those calculations from basic orbital and plain electrodynamics. Then QED has to be junk for more than two bodies else you have to clarify what you base your assumption of. The orbitals of the source terms are indeed spherical if I remembered correctly. But there are variations of properties on the sphere that are not spherical. If the link is some kind of transform, those orbitals could very well result. Of cause every analogy is halting. But mills is expected to explain and match all what is known and when people doesn't find their pet described they shout fool without actually trying to understand and take in all what does work, not in a complicated hard to grasp theory, but a simple and natural one, the answer of the pet question is probably a small modification, a small explanation away, that just is not in print yet. Keppler had a very simple theory of the observations, but couldn't match the very tweaked and refined through data fitting a clumpsy theory of earth centricity. He needed to spend another 10 years to match all of the known knowledge by himself. Therefore I still find the analogy good enough. But mills has a much harder task ahead. To match all corners of our quantum theory. That's stupid let PhD get some grants to help that quest. On Jun 30, 2014 12:26 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 29, 2014, at 14:14, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities for the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual. I doubt they are dual. The electron shell model says that with increasing orbital angular momentum there is a change in the shape of the orbital; e.g., the s, p and d orbitals. These orbital shapes have been incorporated into solid state physics to help explain the emergence of various orders that are observed -- superconduction, ferromagnetism, etc. To the best of my knowledge, Mills describes a single orbital shape -- the orbitsphere. If there is only the orbitsphere, solid state physicists had better go back to the drawing board. Mills's theory sounds like a radical departure from known behavior of bound electrons rather than a description that is dual. It took keppler 10 years of hard work to get his theory into acceptance. I don't think Mills's situation is analogous to that of Kepler.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
* Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. * Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972560 Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
[Vo]:New book.
Have someone read this book? It is good? http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Fusion-Unabridged-Rose-Doris/dp/1486197817/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1404158676sr=8-1keywords=Doris+Rose+fusion
Re: [Vo]:MFMP nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
From the bottom of that page you sent a link to... 50 Year Secrecy Rule The Committee does not itself announce the names of nominees, neither to the media nor to the candidates themselves. In so far as certain names crop up in the advance speculations as to who will be awarded any given year's Prize, this is either sheer guesswork or information put out by the person or persons behind the nomination. Information in the Nobel Committee's nomination database is not made public until after fifty years. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com wrote: Is this a joke? Actual Nobel nominations are not public. Perhaps garbled by translation, it seems the Professor mentioned is merely planning to nominate MFMP for the Peace Prize? By the same thought process, he could nominate me for one as well, and I would have the same chance i.e. zero. From http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/ Are the nominations made public? The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize. -- * From: * Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com; * To: * vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; * Subject: * Re: [Vo]:MFMP nominated for Nobel Peace Prize * Sent: * Sat, Jun 28, 2014 6:44:10 PM They could well be starting a war -- an all out patent war. On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: They don't qualify for the Peace prize. They haven't started any wars. They could, however, win a Nobel prize for fizzix. On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Public voting was not considered - see my analysis at FQXI- the essay judged as worst by the community was rated as the best of the public with lots of votes, i.e. manipulation. The rating system is not good and will be changed hopefully. However is difficult to rate objectively 150 essays, so i understand the necessity of an initial raw and brutal (counter) selection. In my I have told only about DGT and Rossi in the context of Technology- not science. I have the privilege of the friendship with the MFMP boys and i am collaborating with them- an excellent team which deserves Success. Unfortunately I have no funding for them Peter On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Public voting is still enabled. Maybe all 3 of us can get a boost from this. I do not recall: did your essay highlight the MFMP effort? On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately all the 3 pro-cold fusion FQXI essays (by Jed, Kevin and me) have been down-voted by the community of participants- a Pareto issue (80% honest, 20 % dishonest) and did not made it to the pool of 40 (from 153) of potential winners. As regarding MFMP they represent a great initiative and a noble alternative of how research is made, however for development the Montecuccoli stuff decides. Our young colleagues have received only 4.6% of the funding they need. Peter On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I figure this was worth some self-promotion at the FQXI essay contest. After all, how many other essay contestants were seeking to highlight an organization that got nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize DURING THE CONTEST? Author Kevin O\'Malley wrote on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 06:17 GMT stub Humanity would be steered properly by taking notice of this development. No one else can claim that the organization they were seeking to highlight in this essay contest was IN THE SAME TIME FRAME highlighted by the Nobel Peace Prize process. r -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
Yeah, I read it. What else can Rossi say? You don't spit at the alligator until you're done crossing the river. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972560 Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:New book.
good cooking it seems. 2014-06-30 22:08 GMT+02:00 torulf.gr...@bredband.net: Have someone read this book? It is good? http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Fusion-Unabridged-Rose-Doris/dp/1486197817/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1404158676sr=8-1keywords=Doris+Rose+fusion
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
Kevin, At least you have to try to believe that people are not all malicious. He certainly could say that he is disappointed and that he feels that they have broken their promises. He could say a lot other things instead of just throwing out a lie, which he for sure would have to pay dearly for if you are right (which you are not). There for sure are other motivational factors for people than greed. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, I read it. What else can Rossi say? You don't spit at the alligator until you're done crossing the river. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972560 Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:New book.
$17.74 for 108 pages. Published in Dec. of 2012. Scam. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: good cooking it seems. 2014-06-30 22:08 GMT+02:00 torulf.gr...@bredband.net: Have someone read this book? It is good? http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Fusion-Unabridged-Rose-Doris/dp/1486197817/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1404158676sr=8-1keywords=Doris+Rose+fusion
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, At least you have to try to believe that people are not all malicious. ***I'm not attributing malice. I'm attributing greed. He certainly could say that he is disappointed and that he feels that they have broken their promises. ***And that would help out his case exactly how? They'd just delay the report even further. He could say a lot other things instead of just throwing out a lie, which he for sure would have to pay dearly for if you are right (which you are not). ***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's credibility issues regarding his past posts on JONP. There for sure are other motivational factors for people than greed. ***Yes, there are. I just find it difficult to believe that these 7 PhD's are so incompetent. I mean, the vast majority of Vorts knew that there would probably have to be isotopic analysis on the 6 month test. But these geniuses are ONLY NOW getting around to thinking about doing it? That simply does not add up. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, I read it. What else can Rossi say? You don't spit at the alligator until you're done crossing the river. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hi Alan, I am 100% a believer in that those statements are a true reflection of the reasons for the delay. I hope Kevin reads it. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 9:46 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972594 Giuliano Bettini: I edited your text for obvious reasons, conserving the meaning of it. You must know that the peer reviewing of a scientific publication usually takes 6 months as an average. The experiment made by the Third Independent Party is important, as you correctly wrote, and the Professors, to avoid criticisms, need all the time necessary to publish results of which they need to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, also considering all the experience and the critics made during and after the 2013 experiment. It is not just matter of patience, it is also matter of respect for serious scientific work. The reviewing must take all the time it needs on the base of a serious and exhaustive analysis of the results, positive or negative as they might be. Warm Regards, A.R. - Andrea Rossi June 29th, 2014 at 7:40 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=848cpage=8#comment-972560 Angel Blume: We will give detailed public information about the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer when the visits will start. At the moment we cannot give any specific information. It is matter of months, not years, though. Warm Regards, A.R.
[Vo]:Atomic scientist reaches out-of-court settlement...
The following link could perhaps be of interest for some of the list members: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660331/Atomic-scientist-reaches-cou rt-settlement-Government-claiming-sacked-discredit-work-believes-stop-global -warming.html Regards Bo, SM6FIE
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
***Perhaps you are not familiar with Rossi's credibility issues regarding his past posts on JONP. Contrariwise, almost everything he's referred to has come to fruition in one form or another. (Maybe not the automated factory, but where DID all those 1MW units, in 3 different models, come from?) ***Yes, there are. I just find it difficult to believe that these 7 PhD's are so incompetent. I mean, the vast majority of Vorts knew that there would probably have to be  isotopic analysis on the 6 month test. But these geniuses are ONLY NOW getting around to thinking about doing it? That simply does not add up. The test has only just ended. I just hope they had enough sample material to do multiple tests. That's the one aspect that could be done differently if the reviewers suggest/require it. And I repeat my wish that they'd separate the calorimetric and mass spectrometry papers.
Re: [Vo]:Atomic scientist reaches out-of-court settlement...
Bob Bussard worked on the compact tokamak http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/Omni%20Interview.pdf but abandoned it for the Polywell. On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Bo Gärdmark b...@agnitumit.se wrote: The following link could perhaps be of interest for some of the list members: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660331/Atomic-scientist-reaches-cou rt-settlement-Government-claiming-sacked-discredit-work-believes-stop-global -warming.html Regards Bo, SM6FIE
RE: [Vo]:Atomic scientist reaches out-of-court settlement...
Details of the small tokomak are limited. Here is an image: http://golem.fjfi.cvut.cz It is a neutron generator - thousands of times below breakeven, so it is unclear what great utility it has. The takeaway message seems to be that it is difficult to fire a high level employee in the UK. Jones -Original Message- From: Bo Gärdmark The following link could perhaps be of interest for some of the list members: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660331/Atomic-scientist-reaches-cou rt-settlement-Government-claiming-sacked-discredit-work-believes-stop-global -warming.html Regards Bo, SM6FIE
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
I don't know you people what you are seeing. That's really the most normal answer Rossi ever game. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe -- Peer Review
*not game, gave 2014-06-30 22:28 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com: I don't know you people what you are seeing. That's really the most normal answer Rossi ever game. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:30:54 -0700: Hi, I suspect that the explanation is far simpler. It takes photons something like 1 years to exit the sun AFAIK. So photons generated at some distance below the surface are delayed relative to neutrinos generated in the same reaction. I would expect a similar effect to occur during a supernova explosion. In short the slowing doesn't happen in space after they have left the supernova, it happen in the plasma of the supernova itself, before they leave. If this is the correct explanation, then similar delays should be measured for supernova explosions of similar size, irrespective of distance from Earth. Interesting idea. Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problemthe arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
