The related SPAWAR work has now been published in two peer-reviewed
journals, replicated by SRI and confirmed by RAS.
Do the SRI replications include replication of the Forsley's observation
of backside tracks being correlated with the frontside tracks?
That
looked like an *extremely*
By the way, the subject of this thread is intentionally put off. I
gather this refers to the notion that Scott Little and Earthtech have
deliberately screwed up cold fusion experiments or taken steps not to
find excess heat. I think there is no chance they have done anything
like that. They
Excerpt from: http://newenergytimes.com/tgp/2007TGP/2007TGP-Report.htm
*
I asked the skeptic whether he could come up with any explanation, besides
a nuclear particle emission, for this effect.
Not only did he fail to provide a reasonable alternative explanation, but
he
EarthTech Assessment
http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET23.htm#earthtech
Steven Krivit wrote:
Excerpt from: http://newenergytimes.com/tgp/2007TGP/2007TGP-Report.htm
*
I asked the skeptic whether he could come up with any explanation,
besides a nuclear particle emission, for this effect.
Not only did he fail to provide a reasonable
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:30:39 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
EarthTech Assessment
http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET23.htm#earthtech
Perhaps Dennis Letts laser triggered experiment only works around Solar max?
(Increased quantities of Solar neutrinos?)
If so, then
This document seems to be out of date:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET23.htm#earthtech
In this document from 2007, Letts wrote that he
could not make laser stimulation work. It stopped
working for years. As I noted here, after he
wrote this he discovered the problem (we hope)
hi im a ridiculous clueless twat, so here goes:
2008/12/5 Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Heavy water is hygroscopic
whats hygroscopic?
Esa Ruoho wrote:
whats hygroscopic?
Look it up! This is why God gave us Google! The search term define:
hygroscopic returns the following in item 2, appropriately from a
roofing contractor:
attracting, absorbing and retaining atmospheric moisture
Hi Jed,
contempt not content.
Jack Smith
Jones Beene wrote:
First off - how does anyone benefit, even an oil company
(if they were behind EarthTech's funding)?
No oil company would ever benefit from maintaining the
status quo in the face of a real breakthrough advance, by
even a tiny
Howdy Mike,
What technology does BLP possess? I keep reading the hype and the laud, but
where's the beef? Show me a single profitable, in service, useful product
other than their magical ability to keep somebody else's money juggling in
the air while selling tickets to the carnival.
Gosh,
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:24:15 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
One estimate is that a gigajoule
-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:24:15 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
One estimate is that a gigajoule reactor would require 1 liter of water per
second.
A one GW reactor
Last year it was close to $1.3M for a Nobel.
Terry
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 2:15 PM, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Terry,
I strongly and respectfully disagree. We have heard this kind of sour
grapes
If Earthtech finds something that is a genuine robust anomaly -
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:17:57 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I was quoting somebody else. 200 eV sounds high. Even if it wedre 100 eV and
the water consumption rate were 2 liter/second, that is still low. Sacling
down to a small town or village, it doesn't take much water.
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:03:31 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Since the recent test at Rowan, I think you need to provide an alternate
explanation for the excess energy produced if you want to claim fraud.
Howdy Mike,
What technology does BLP possess? I keep reading the
This was recently (11/23/09) posted on the Hydrino group:
As I have pointed out in the past, EarthTech is not to
be trusted. Their purpose is to pretend to fail at
replication so as to discredit experiments that risk
upsetting the status quo:
turkey investors being led to the
slaughter!
Jones
From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:02:31 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
This was recently (11/23/09) posted on the Hydrino
Jones Beene wrote:
JR: That is incorrect for several reasons First, oil company
presidents, a U.S. Vice President and most recently the Japanese Min. of
Science and Technology have told cold fusion researchers that they will not
allow funding for cold fusion research because if it works
@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:02:31 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
This was recently (11/23/09) posted on the Hydrino group:
As I have pointed out in the past, EarthTech is not to
be trusted. Their purpose is to pretend to fail at
replication so
As I am off for the yearly tryptophan fix, let me just state these seven
obvious conclusions, which are closer to fact than opinion.
1) Yes the oil companies have been involved in our government at the highest
levels. Doesn't matter.
2) Yes, the oil companies are awash in profits which would
This has been an interesting pro/con argument as rcently expressed by
Jed and Jones.
It's always makes for interesting debate when these two spar with each
other on Votex.
What personally goes through my mind is whether the petroleum cartel
(both companies and respective countries) posses the
Jones Beene wrote:
Terry,
I strongly and respectfully disagree. We have heard this kind of sour grapes
If Earthtech finds something that is a genuine robust anomaly - then you can be sure they will immediately try to buy or finance it, and then help to promote it - NOT hide
That is the
The number of failures from them had me thinking the same thing, true or not
it is a natural conclusion.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was recently (11/23/09) posted on the Hydrino group:
As I have pointed out in the past, EarthTech is not to
be
And true or not they should be discredited regardless of the reason for
their failed replications.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:33 AM, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The number of failures from them had me thinking the same thing, true or
not it is a natural conclusion.
On Fri, Nov 28,
be applied to aircraft, but I am
willing to be pleasantly surprised.
Mike Carrell
- Original Message -
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
As I am off for the yearly tryptophan fix
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:24:15 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
One estimate is that a gigajoule reactor would require 1 liter of water per
second.
A one GW reactor would require 1 L/sec. if the energy release / H atom were
about 200 eV.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:24:15 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Even with favorable assumptions, the rate of implementation of BLP
technology may take one to two decades before the carbon-based fuels are
replaced. That is comparable with some estimates of the decline of oil
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:24:15 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Even with favorable assumptions
29 matches
Mail list logo
