Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On 12/29/2016 02:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: LOL simply converting angular to linear momentums is trivial - think of a piston and crank, ball billiards or whatever.. You are confusing angular velocity, rotational energy, and kinetic energy with angular momentum and linear momentum. A crank

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: So, there's an intriguing thought to end on - if an EM-driven spacecraft subsequently decelerates again by simply performing a 180° rotation and continuing to apply constant thrust, all of the 'anomolous' momentum and energy is neatly returned to

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: What's wrong with the centripetal tether example? With the engine turned off (no thrust) putting the tether in place doesn't change the angular momentum at all. The cross product of the linear momentum of the object with its radius vector remains

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

12:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote: Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a classical symmetry break, that's its whole

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

-28 16:43 GMT-02:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>>: Just to point something out -- the EM drive /obviously/ doesn't need to be outside the craft to work, since it doesn't eject mass. Furthermore (and consequently), it violates

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

Just to point something out -- the EM drive /obviously/ doesn't need to be outside the craft to work, since it doesn't eject mass. Furthermore (and consequently), it violates conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum, conservation of energy, and conservation of mass. While

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

On 12/09/2016 01:54 PM, H LV wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: Well known result -- gravitational time dilation has to do with the gravitational potential, not the strength of the field. ​GR

Re: [Vo]:Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity inside a spherical shell.

Well known result -- gravitational time dilation has to do with the gravitational potential, not the strength of the field. Simple gedanken: Drop a rock through a slender shaft into a spherical hollow cut out of the center of a spherical planet. The rock has more kinetic energy when it gets

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

And of course it can read the RfID chip in your credit card as well, so there's no real need to even pause -- you'll (eventually) automatically pay for everything in your cart simply by leaving the store. And of course anyone in the area with the right kind of equipment (stashed in a

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in Earth’s inner core

Re: Lighter materials migrating to where the gravity is lower: It doesn't work that way. A pingpong ball on the surface has no way of knowing that 1000 miles down it would be lighter. What migrates up, and what migrates down, depends only on the local gravitational field, and the relative

Re: [Vo]:How much helium?

As I suppose everyone reading this thread has already recalled, one of Bill Beaty's "red flags of fraud" 'way back when was responding to questions and challenges with outrage and anger, while failing to actually address the question being raised. We've certainly seen this sort of behavior

Re: [Vo]:The Long Peace 18 min video slide show on all war deaths since Fall of Rome -- after 70 million in WWII, lower and lower to now...: Rich Murray 2016.11.06

And since WWII there's been the Pax Atomica. It may have been the first time in the history of the world that two dominant powers were ideologically opposed and were at each other's throats for decades and yet never went to war. On 11/07/2016 01:41 AM, Rich Murray wrote:

Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

Sounds sort of reasonable. But something comes to mind -- the E field they apply, as described, doesn't do any work, as far as I can tell. It /just/ biases the cell. IOW it's a static E field. In particular, since there's no path for the charge to leave the "plates" (front and back

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

Do you honestly believe that modern relativity theory takes Einstein's conclusions from his original papers and just blindly uses them? What kind of idiots do you take physicists to be, anyway? The modern version of SR is based on tensor calculus with little or no connection with Einstein's

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

One trivial point -- if you're in free fall I don't think there is any Rindler boundary. You're following a geodesic, and not "really" accelerating. You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating mass and get the right answer. In fact, while you certainly /can/ apply

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

So now we're posting science fiction here? (Or does stuff from Rossi count as pure fantasy rather than sci-fi?) On 09/20/2016 04:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Norman September 20, 2016 at 7:28 AM Dear Andrea Rossi: Update of the work on the QuarkX? Cheers, Norman Andrea Rossi September 20, 2016 at

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

On 09/18/2016 04:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Peter Gluck Ødear Jones,some 10% of the sum in dispute usually goes to the attorney, lawyers, hudges...everywhere. Very funny. I mistook this for a serious discussion… Hasn't been that, for at least a couple months. It is clear that

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

On 09/16/2016 03:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: A researcher with a good experiment should contact I.H. They might fund the research. No one else will. No government will. Once burned twice shy. Do you really think I.H. would take another flier on cold fusion at this point? Rossi did a

Re: [Vo]:I am fighting for the right to think differently

On 09/12/2016 02:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Peter Gluck > wrote: "To learn who rules over you- simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize (Voltaire) Who are you talking about? Sounds like maybe his wife? Can't think

Re: [Vo]:I am fighting for the right to think differently

They sure are out there! See this article: http://educate-yourself.org/mc/ And this: http://www.starshipearththebigpicture.com/2013/10/25/ever-seen-a-mind-control-tower-bet-you-have/ And that's just a start. Once you start looking, there's /lots/ of information on the Internet about the

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

On 09/03/2016 01:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: And more important, how could the dirt /circulate?/ It wouldn't make it past the boil/vaporize/recondense stage. If there really was steam, the dirt cou

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

tem didn't work. On 09/02/2016 11:56 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: And obvious point ... if the water in the reservoir was seriously dirty, as you mentioned in an earlier no

Re: [Vo]:Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Final Report

Jed, what is this? I can't quite figure it out. Is this a review of old work, or is some of the work in it new? The most recent date I could find in the paper is 2012, on references in the bibliography which were most likely describing work done in 2011 (or earlier). The text appeared to

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

On 09/02/2016 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Also, because an earlier version of the report supposedly had higher numbers, which were replaced with 0.0 bar in the later version. Thanks for that nugget. It made the time spent following this whole thread worthwhile. :-) (When people do

[Vo]:Truism regarding calorimetry

Something we don't often consider: *From an engineering perspective, if you need careful calorimetry to determine whether your generator works, then it really doesn't matter whether it works. Its output is so small as to be irrelevant.* A device producing a megawatt of heat energy should

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

suppose we can search further if you really doubt that the test took place. I feel a bit lazy at the moment. Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inter

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:55 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: On 08/26/2016 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Actually, that is central to the legal questions. People on Planet Rossi have the peculiar notion that contracts are enforced based strictly on the words in them. If you can write a clever enough

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:28 PM, David Roberson wrote: I am trying to figure out how Rossi could have faked it just as you mention. We should be able to achieve that goal by using scientific logic, at least that is my assumption. Perhaps the fact that I leave open the possibility that he may be

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote: Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules Is this known to be a fact? Has Rossi actually described in some reasonably clear way, rather than just giving a handwave to a leading question about feedback? Where

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

to a tiger/. Seriously, that's not going to lead to anything of much value. Trying to figure out /how he faked it/ would be a lot more useful. On 08/26/2016 03:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, David Roberson wrote: I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi mig

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 02:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one would be allowed in the customers plant, *why should Murray be allowed to visit* it? Rossi did

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, David Roberson wrote: I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while not being an accurate assessment of the real power. I assumed that the information published by Engineer48

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 09:40 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Alain Sepeda > wrote: Being a bit naive I would say it is not smart to clean evidences when you want to convince someone it works, and it is indeed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

----Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson wrote: Just consider what you would believe if shown

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

al Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he could fake it. The power calculatio

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he could fake it. The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no evidence it was. They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no evidence that it did. If the flow was lower

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

..@aol.com>> wrote: It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by sensing the un boiled water temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting the individual heating drive elements. As Stephen Lawrence pointed out, the output power is stable and

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

to produce dry steam, and its output temp was always within a few degrees of boiling, then it had to be a fake. On 08/24/2016 01:08 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 08/24/2016 12:29 PM, David Roberson wrote: Stephen you are assuming a design that is far different than Rossi's previous devices

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

it's kept at boiling to make it easy to fake the results. Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:58 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM,

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Aug 24, 2016 8:04 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation You don't need "active feedback." The steam escapes the reactor shortly after being formed On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote: A

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote: As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of power is being supplied to the customer. If the ERV is mistaken that the steam is dry then I.H. is likely correct. If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is atmospheric

Re: [Vo]:JM Products misleading business card.

/Seriously?? /I knew people in college who would pull stunts like that, along with writing a bunch of made-up stuff on their resumes, but calling it "normal" and treating it as honest business-as-usual is just bizarre. The policy of "We must excuse Rossi at any cost, with any fairy tale we

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

On 08/20/2016 11:04 PM, Che wrote: This whole Rossi saga has hijacked most-all fruitful Cold Fusion discussion. Um, yeah. Here's a quote from a Vortex message posted in December 2011 (emphasis added): Horace, and some other skeptics, have a much more obvious mission: Try to "talk

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

My two cents I would suspect Penon knew it was all fraudulent, and in fact was hired by Rossi preciesely to produce fake data to sustain the fraud. But Penon wasn't getting anything out of it except what Rossi was paying him, and seriously didn't give a damn about Rossi beyond his pay.

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

On 08/10/2016 02:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi is unfathomable. I guess the simplest explanation would be that he has nothing. In that scenario, I cannot imagine why he filed a lawsuit. He should have taken the $11 million and run. Why did Hitler open a second front in WWII? It doomed

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

Nope, I don't buy the "He saw a little something positive and convinced himself" argument. Rossi's history of apparently fraudulent behavior goes back well before the ecat debacle. Dig into old Vort email; it's referenced in some detail there, in the vitriolic discussions about 4 or 5 years

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

e right" and concede your point. I confess I haven't studied the setup the way I should. On 08/09/2016 09:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even nec

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 1:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something like this: *You said:* OK, interesting

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

:-)OK. I'll stop bugging you about it. On 08/09/2016 01:32 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I think that's interesting. It may even help future scammers and I am not ashamed of this possibility. 2016-08-09 2:22 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>&

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive doublethink he

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

You don't seem to get it. Rossi has been shown to be lying and fabricating results. ROSSI. ROSSI is not to be believed. His "experiments" are consequently worthless, because the basic assumption of good faith, on which all conventional analysis of experiments ultimately rests, is gone.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive doublethink here. You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while /assuming/ that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat. If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably /correct/, and

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/08/2016 11:39 PM, David Roberson wrote: I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth if he were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact. Is that not giving him the benefit of the doubt? Can anyone be 100% confident that he is completely lying?

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/08/2016 08:27 PM, David Roberson wrote: I suppose that Rossi may not be telling the truth as you have concluded, but I am attempting to give him _*the benefit of the doubt*_. You have got to be kidding. We have been discussing Rossi in this group for the last /_six years_./ The

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/08/2016 06:25 PM, Che wrote: On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: The group got Rossi'd a couple years back and we're still gradually digging out from under. Ditto the entire LENR world, I'm

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/08/2016 04:52 PM, Che wrote: On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: ... Missed this the first time around. Peter, you've been spouting boring, s

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/08/2016 12:20 PM, Russ George wrote: RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document This acrimonious discussion of Rossi with the posturing pretentious claims of ‘insider knowledge’ by one disgruntled camp follower, utterly unsubstantiated and without any

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/08/2016 09:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was only hot water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to 100°C. I feel like this is where I came in. Years ago, in early ecat tests, Rossi had a *fixed* flow rate of water

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have? Days; weeks? How do you got them? *How would you convince us that you have them indeed*? That's obnoxious. You're outright accusing Jed of lying here. I've been hanging around here for a long time, I've

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have? Days; weeks? How do you got them? How would you convince us that you have them indeed? I confess that after what you have told about knowledgeable people being those who know to cheat with an instrument I

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/07/2016 01:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 08/07/2016 01:06 PM, Che wrote: On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote: What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and ru

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/07/2016 01:06 PM, Che wrote: On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and running before the trial? Good joke. Hah hah! What will you sat if the

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On 08/07/2016 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame on Penon and send him to jail, instead of going himself. Not sure I can agree with that. I've long since stopped believing people like Rossi (or Trump) have a coherent exit strategy -- their slogan

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Thanks. Interesting read. On 08/06/2016 07:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex group on Yahoo. Okay. I uploaded the document here: https://driv

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex group on Yahoo. It calls itself a "public" group but I couldn't get it to show me the file, none the less, and didn't immediately see a way to join it (yet another social networking site, just what everybody needs). I found a

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

On 08/05/2016 05:21 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: No more stationary than a satellite. As far as I know, fixed-position satellite dishes work just fine. Get the altitude about right, get the azimuth sort of in the right direction, and the reflector produces some gain, which is what you

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

got a much tighter pattern, and you'd better be aiming it carefully. At least that's how I understand it. On 08/05/2016 05:15 PM, MJ wrote: "small towers and dishes" ? Will the plane be stationary? Mark Jordan On 05-Aug-16 17:28, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Thanks --

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

Thanks -- that makes sense. On 08/05/2016 02:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ah, here we are: "With Aquila, we've designed a new aircraft architecture, one that can support staying in the air for months at a time. Aquila is solar powered, and when launched, it will create a 50-km communications

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

What's your point, Russ? Stringing fibre costs a bunch. This is supposed to reach areas where that hasn't been done and where the funds to do it don't exist. As such, it solves a real problem which really exists; it's not just some conspiracy dreamed up by the capitalists. The alternative

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

, of course -- the geometry presumably doesn't affect the difficulty of receiving signals from users nearly as much.) On 08/05/2016 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: I suppose it's not actually WIFI . . . I thin

Re: [Vo]:Facebook solar airplane

There are some parts I really don't understand. From the text article, " the plan is to create a drone system that acts as /*floating wifi routers*/ to bridge the internet gaps on the ground" Wifi routers, 15 /miles/ up in the sky? What kind of wifi card do you need in your system to throw

Re: [Vo]:Improved flywheel

Kewl -- I would not have expected a major step forward in flywheels; they seem so basic. Something I don't understand, though. "The rotor ... is permanently levitated as opposed to electromagnetically..." How do you levitate something "permanently"? Jed, do you have any idea what this

Re: [Vo]:Dehumidifiers and temperature

I'd have to guess you live in an area that isn't very humid. Otherwise you wouldn't have to ask. :-) First, the books on the bookcases in the livingroom stop growing mold on their spines if you drop the humidity. (Otherwise, here in the Ottawa River Valley, they sure do, just sitting there

Re: [Vo]: The life and death of Eugene Mallove

Thanks for the link. On 07/17/2016 06:00 PM, a.ashfield wrote: A feature article in foreign policy.com (!) http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/the-coldest-case-cold-fusion-eugene-mallove-mit-infinite-energy/ Jed Rothwell gets a mention .

Re: [Vo]:Gain from wires and magnets?

On 07/17/2016 12:00 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: In such cases, it is really useful to simulate the system with a model that is entirely without unknown physics and see how the model compares with observation. If it predicts the same phenomena, you can be pretty sure that the outcome was simply

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:[Vo]: Dallas Police’s ‘Bomb Robot’

Don't think serial numbers will be of much use in this area. They're valuable in tracing guns and cars because the sale of both those items is pretty heavily controlled, and so there's an actual record of what happened to, say, item number 2398623. But toys aren't tracked at all, and are

Re: [Vo]:mini-interview with Andrea Rossi re a mouse, dispute, some info

What's with all the cross-posts? I thought it was considered poor form to cross-post to a huge list -- makes it too easy for people on Vortex to accidentally respond to people they've never heard of before. As to the "interview", Rossi should be posting in the forums over on 4chan. He'd fit

Re: [Vo]:ICCF19 Proceedings uploaded

A4 output, with U.S. letter selected as the word processor's page format? (Sorry, Jed, it's a tiny nit. :-( ) On 07/06/2016 02:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion Proceedings of the ICCF 19 Conference, April 13–17,

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

On 07/05/2016 04:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: Jed, When you start with certainty that Rossi is a fraud all becomes clear to you. I did not start with that idea. On the contrary, as you see in the quote from me

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

On 06/25/2016 03:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: At the other extreme . . . I do not know whether radiation actually promotes health. I have heard it might, but I have not read the studies, so I cannot judge. But biology is full of surprises, so I would not discount the possibility. Dunno if

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

. 2016-06-25 15:47 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>>: And */Abd was banned??/* When was that? And why?

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

mouthing Abd due his religion. So, unless _Abd is unbanned_, I cannot see fair grounds to ban Che. 2016-06-25 15:23 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>>: Hallo, Bill! Sorry to bother you about this "Che" is a pseudonym wit

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

How much difference does this make, in practical terms? I'm not sure it's all that significant. If it's linear, then it's a tradeoff, and there's still a threshold below which it's not worth reducing radiation exposure, even if there is no "medical threshold". As an analogy which may help

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

Hallo, Bill! Sorry to bother you about this "Che" is a pseudonym with no information about the actual person behind it. That's not forbidden but it's not exactly smiled on either. "Che" mostly posts troll stuff and ad hominems. No surprise, given the choice of pseudonym, which is

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

MJ output, about 5000x the chemical energy. On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work, which might give an overview of this experiment and this ap

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work, which might give an overview of this experiment and this approach? I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to what the reaction is even believed to be here. It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff was going on

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

The assumption I have made here is that combustion happens with 10 deg. of TDC, which I am unsure about. It may not actually be complete in that time. I tried to track this down (with little actual success) and the few vague assertions I could find made it seem like combustion actually takes

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

On 06/17/2016 06:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: At 60 mph, I think engines run at about 2500 rpm. A single piston stroke with a 6-cylinder engine running at 2500 rpm would consume . . . ummm . . .1.71 MJ / 15,000 = 114 joules. Right? That takes only 0.0002 s to burn? For sure -- at least, in

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

On 06/17/2016 04:21 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: I have to come back to this. This isn't looking good for Mills, and it couldn't have come at a worse time, too. For the past year or so, Mills has been approaching the end of his work, and hence, the end of his funding. These people, whoever they

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

The idea that it's leaking fits well with the observation that the thrust involved is "incredibly small". When you're chasing effects at the margin of what you can detect, totally marginal errors can totally mess up the results. On 06/16/2016 01:36 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: I don't quite

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

The author says: "photons must become paired up in order to discharge the fuel cavity, so that the two photons in those pairs are essentially out of phase, which means they entirely cancel each other out and have no net electromagnetic field" If it shoots out a pair of /out of

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 05:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: Jed, You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think there are still many unknowns. For the last time: I am pretty sure I know the answers

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/05/2016 08:43 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up a lawyer and done some groundwork before everything

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/05/2016 07:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going to pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/03/2016 11:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: ... his instruments produce magically round numbers. *His machine produces exactly 1 MW!* Oh wow. I missed that. That's hilarious -- totally lightened up an otherwise dreary morning!

Re: [Vo]:Running on lava

I particularly like the bit toward the end, where he steps off the flow, and as he's taking the last step, he lifts up his foot, and the sole of his shoe is flaming. (Easier to see in the slo-mo replay.) On 06/01/2016 11:51 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: See:

Re: [Vo]:last news

SPAM SPAM SPAM Another weightloss spammer -- should be kicked out (they're probably not even human, just a bot). On 06/02/2016 09:20 PM, Peter F. Macaluso wrote: Hi, Here are some news since we've met last time, just read'em here http://quuquucugy.unshelvish.com/aeoadyb Yours

Re: [Vo]:good news

SPAM SPAM SPAM this "person" (who is most likely a spambot) should be kicked out of the group. It's a weightloss trash site. On 06/02/2016 09:19 PM, kowals...@mail.montclair.edu wrote: Hey, I've got some good news for you, read more about it here

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >