Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> The professors tested and calibrated this machine for 6 weeks. They would >>> have discovered that it has a large hidden thermal mass. >> >> >> They did. It takes 30 minutes to bring the temperature up to the level

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such >> suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true. >> > > Seriously, It is nearly impossible to design a demonstration that

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on >> objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many >> objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided >> indef

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Joshua Cude > wrote: > > Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a > > concession. > > Concession to what? We are truthseekers, not competitors. > Truth-seekers can disagree, and

[Vo]:Off Topic

Hi Steven, 2-21-11 I appreciate your coverage of what's happening in Wisconsin. If you are interested in the Koch financing of the tea party, see http://www.avonhistory.org/mil3/tea10.htm It seems to me that, in 2010, "Archie Bunker" voted for the thieves because he hates Obama. Jack Smith

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On 02/18/2011 06:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > Hi, > > Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then ejected > mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in > pulses, > it seems possible that it also ejected water in pulses, at least to some

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

At 01:51 AM 2/21/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/21/rothwell-makes-pre-emptive-strike-against-new-lenr-textbook/ http://tinyurl.com/4s3xhjt Right there, in a nutshell, is perfect evidence as to Krivit's effective demise as a reporter on LENR. This leads me

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude wrote: > It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they are so easy > to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so hard? The more they > neglect to do that, the more justified the suspicion becomes. > No, it isn't hard, but they are not "neglecting" the is

[Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

Subject was Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device At 04:12 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: Not true. I have described what it would take to convince me (and so has Jed Rothwell), and if cold fusion could deliver a tiny fraction of what has been promised

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > On 02/18/2011 06:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Putt putt boats draw in water which flashes into steam and is then > ejected > > mostly as fluid. Given that the water was delivered to Rossi's device in > pulses, >

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

Ah. It seems Wiley has not agreed to publish this textbook. That is relief! I tried to ask Krivit about this textbook, but as I said, he refused to talk to me. He acted as if I was not there. When I tapped him on the shoulder he walked away. An extraordinary thing to do! If he had paused for a mo

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On 02/21/2011 09:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they > are so easy to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so > hard? The more they neglect to do that, the mo

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > There can be no rational question that these people can read a weight > scale, and use a graduated cylinder. There are no rational reasons to doubt > the flow rate. The reasons you come up with are mere excuses. You are moving > the goalposts

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC (mostly): Ground Zero: Madison, Wisconsin, USA's "Cairo" continues

On 02/21/2011 02:48 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > Carl Marx's dire prediction of the inevitability of a worker's > revolution failed to come true in the USA because he didn't anticipate > the remedial role of labor unions. Thanks, Horace! I've never run across that insight before -- it's, like,

RE: [Vo]:Off Topic

>From Jack Smith: > I appreciate your coverage of what's happening > in Wisconsin. If you are interested in the Koch > financing of the tea party, see > > http://www.avonhistory.org/mil3/tea10.htm > > It seems to me that, in 2010, "Archie Bunker" > voted for the thieves because he hates Obama.

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Subject was Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from > Rossi device > > At 04:12 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > Not true. I have described what it would take to convince me (and so has >> Jed Rothwell), and

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

This was all a tempest in a teapot! Good thing. I sent a message to the Wiley editor, pointing to Krivit's article, and apologizing for the misunderstanding. Regarding Abd's comments, several potential authors told me that Krivit pulled this stunt of pretending you are not there. I mentioned McKub

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > This discussion has been about the Rossi work, which is based on a secret > process, and which is inadequately confirmed . . . I think the confirmation is better than most claims, simply because the power is so high, and the input to output ratio is so good. It was

Re: [Vo]:Off Topic

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:22 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > I must now go back to the front lines. > > "Have fun storming the State Capital!" > > ...and yes, it probably will take a miracle. Good luck! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-5g78Nr6Q T

[Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

See please at 22passi.blogspot.com and talefta.blogspot.com 18 hours 15 KW. No details given, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

At 09:50 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ah. It seems Wiley has not agreed to publish this textbook. That is relief! I tried to ask Krivit about this textbook, but as I said, he refused to talk to me. He acted as if I was not there. When I tapped him on the shoulder he walked away. An extrao

[Vo]:

on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:20 Jones Beene wrote [snip] It is a dimensional thing. Dense hydrogen only accumulates in two dimensions. After it accumulates, it may move in 3-space as a bound unit, but the effect would be similar to the way Mills' describes the 'orbitsphere' which is 2D but enco

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: So I'm going to ask, as to cold fusion in general, "what has been promised" and what do promises have to do with science? A new energy so

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

In any case, a test as today's unofficial Bologna test (18 hours 15 KW) will not convince him. Possibly the water was not heated- it was actually cooled. See my posting Peter On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > >> This discussion has been about

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Cude has added that he is not "convinced that nuclear reactions in cold > fusion experiments have produced measurable heat." From my point of view > that puts him in the category of creationists who are not convinced of the > evidence that

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would presumably

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

At 10:38 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: This was all a tempest in a teapot! Good thing. I sent a message to the Wiley editor, pointing to Krivit's article, and apologizing for the misunderstanding. Regarding Abd's comments, several potential authors told me that Krivit pulled this stunt of

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

At 10:38 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: This was all a tempest in a teapot! Good thing. I sent a message to the Wiley editor, pointing to Krivit's article, and apologizing for the misunderstanding. Your letter may have done good, pointing out to Wiley that there could be problems with agre

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On 02/21/2011 12:39 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > In any case, a test as today's unofficial Bologna test (18 hours 15 KW) Any documentation, or reports by witnesses? Any clear measurements which give substance to the 15 kW number? Did anybody write it up? I'm not sure what an "official" test would

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua Cude still impresses me as the only adult in the class in junior high school -- very impressive clarity of comprehension, speedy assessment of essential factors, vigorous lucid communication, terse effortless pointed prose, alert compassion, as he tackles the tedious task of pointing out to

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: So, we have someone who is not a scientist, who doesn't know that the temperature of steam can exceed 100C at atmospheric pressure, saying that vast majority of people who do science are not scientists. But let's look at scientific progress

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On 02/21/2011 01:28 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > On 02/21/2011 12:39 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> In any case, a test as today's unofficial Bologna test (18 hours 15 KW) >> > Any documentation, or reports by witnesses? Any clear measurements > which give substance to the 15 kW numbe

[Vo]:Traffic Waves

Hey Bill, your traffic waves video just went viral. Its been posted on a bunch of networking sites and webcomics, and several of my friends have independently posted it various places.

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On 02/21/2011 01:33 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > [a bunch of sneering jeers directed at Jed] > > Here specifically is rule 2: > > 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is >banned. "Pathological Skepticism" is banne

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 10:52 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: This discussion has been about the Rossi work, which is based on a secret process, and which is inadequately confirmed . . . I think the confirmation is better than most

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

This list was formed to get away from the interminable, meaningless and unproductive debate between "pathological skeptics" and "true believers." The list was formed especially to get away from the ego feeding pathological skeptics on sci.physics.fusion that filled the bandwidth and preven

Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

Peter Gluck wrote: See please at > > 22passi.blogspot.com and > talefta.blogspot.com > > 18 hours 15 KW. > 18 hours is great! I wonder who this Daniel is, and whether he will provide more data. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

Daniele Passerini is a journalist he wrote the reports + other news about the test of Bologna Jan 14. I will try to get as many data as possible. At the Greek blog, our friend George has translated the news in English too. peter On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

Since 1989... No replication... By independent groups... By associated groups... By the same group, on the scale of days, weeks, years... By the same group with a single device, on the scale of days, weeks, years... That's the single consistent outcome in the huge variety of cold fusion exper

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

As a consummate skeptic, I don't even experience an external physical reality, whether body, society, or universe... Let's say, "Rich" is on all levels within a virtual simulation, a "Rich's life world dream"... So, as always, the reality status of this very flowing moment of perception-cognition

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 12:47 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: Cude has added that he is not "convinced that nuclear reactions in cold fusion experiments have produced measurable heat." From my point of vie

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

Rich Murray wrote: Since 1989... No replication... By independent groups... By associated groups... By the same group, on the scale of days, weeks, years... By the same group with a single device, on the scale of days, weeks, years... That's ridiculous. The bulk Pd-D experiment has been wi

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Rich Murray wrote: Rich, a floating shiny brown anomaly in the punch bowl Agreement at last! 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Feb 21, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 01:33 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: [a bunch of sneering jeers directed at Jed] Here specifically is rule 2: 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem i

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, your mail talked about the rejection as being of a whole group, not just you. Did you extrapolate from your own experience to that of the group, or do you have any other testimony to present? Three others told me Krivit was pretending they were not there. Sever

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > Your faith is irrelevant to the purpose, and as voiced above actually > contrary to the stated purpose, of this list. Yes, I am aware that I do not belong here. I joined because my c

RE: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Joshua: A few clarifications from you would be helpful... Jed wrote: >>You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. To which Joshua stated: > Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi. Where is your evidence that the scientists that were there to instrument the demo were

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <> a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: >> > > So I'm going to ask, as to cold fusion in general, "what has been >>> pr

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: But Rossi is not a clear confirmation of any prior work, since we don't know what's inside. Sure he is. This is a confirmation of Piantelli and Focardi, and Mills for that matter. We know approximately what is inside: finely divided Ni and two other elements in tra

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 12:47 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell <> jedrothw...@gmail.com>jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Cude has added that he is not "convinced that nuclear reactions in cold >> fusi

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:40:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] >But the result that is known is >that helium is produced, and the observed energy >supports the conclusion that the primary fuel is >deuterium. "unknown nuclear reaction" would bring >us full circle. That

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Even hot fusion operates on tunneling rather than overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force. (The latter would require about 30 MeV). You mean Tokamak plasma fusion on earth. Right? What about in the core of the sun? What mechanism operates there, if not brute f

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:50:02 +1100: Hi, Sorry, for D-D fusion 30 MeV is wrong. It would take about 1 MeV. >In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:40:47 -0500: >Hi, >[snip] >>But the result that is known is >>that helium is pr

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

its no big deal... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th_aBzrV37M harry - Original Message > From: Horace Heffner > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: michael barron ; Rich Murray ; > Rich >Murray > Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 1:52:20 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports o

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 03:28 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: But Rossi is not a clear confirmation of any prior work, since we don't know what's inside. Sure he is. This is a confirmation of Piantelli and Focardi, and Mills for that matter. We know approximately what is inside: fine

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 01:41 PM 2/21/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know about Joshua, but a report of an experiment with no details given sure doesn't convince *me*, but maybe that makes me a pathological skeptic, too, eh? Of course not. That was hyperbole on Jed's part. He might be right, if Joshua i

Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy

In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:54:52 -0500: Hi, [snip] >mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > >> Even hot fusion operates on tunneling rather than overcoming the Coulomb >> barrier >> by brute force. (The latter would require about 30 MeV). > >You mean Tokamak plasma fusion on ea

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Over the top funny! Thanks! My laughing was highly therapeutic! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Feb 21, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: its no big deal... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th_aBzrV37M harry - Original Message From: Hor

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > > If you examine what's being published, you don't find an attempt to prove > it's real, not lately, anyway. You find, in primary research, reports of > phenomena that imply reality, discussion of possible explanations that > assume C

Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

It is a little unclear whether there will soon be a report on this 18-hour test. It may take a while. I have contacted some the people involved. They did say that if they write a report in English, they will let me have a few hours to fix the English before publishing it. That would help reduce

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make >> up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And since the steam is created in >> the horizontal portion, it is

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

Joshua Cude wrote: Given that the experiments are working close to detection limits for helium, > a little cognitive bias could explain the correlation. > 1. They were not close to the detection limit. 2. As Abd noted, they were blind tests. So it would not be cognitive bias, it would be ESP.

[Vo]:Rossi credibility

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Okay, to Jed, and perhaps to others, this is confirmation of prior work. > But because it's "secret protocol" it's weak in that respect. It isn't all that secret. I have known that it is Ni-H cold fusion for a year, and people in Italy have known for 2 years. Group

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And |since the

RE: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

>From Jed, > It is a little unclear whether there will soon be a report on this > 18-hour test. It may take a while. I have contacted some the people > involved. They did say that if they write a report in English, they will > let me have a few hours to fix the English before publishing it. That >

Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > You stated "...IF they write a report in English,..." > > . . . IF??? . . . > It was a quote from the correspondence. I was being diplomatic. I can't very well order them to write a report in English, so I said "if . . ." I am sure they intend to wr

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

Horace Heffner wrote: > As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into > x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of > the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a double check on this discussion, you should note that t

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On 02/21/2011 03:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > "This was a test without steam (with the Delta-T deliberately well > below those achieved last January 14)." > > That's what Celani was looking for. That's good. Good? That's *great*! Is there a paper on it, either present or forthcoming, I hope,

RE: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

>From Jed: > It was a quote from the correspondence. I was being diplomatic. > I can't very well order them to write a report in English, so I > said "if . . ." > > I am sure they intend to write a report in English, sooner or later. > They said they would be pleased to have me check the English

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner >> wrote: >> >> On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: >> >> |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 03:01 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxd

Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test

This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). No steam. MINIMUM power measured was 15 kW for 18h. 0.4g H2 consumed. This means that a 270 kWh = 972 MJ where at least produced. This i

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in m