Re: [Vo]:Off topic, or maybe not

Plenty of people understand this. Don't drink the Imperialist Kool-Aid, people. WWIII means the utter end of a lot more than cold fusion research... On Monday, January 6, 2020, Chris Zell wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies > > > > Does Israel have ready

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Non-locality

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their > respective domains<< > > When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving; > general relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and > quantum

Re: [Vo]:anyone know this guy

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 9:54 PM Terry Blanton wrote: > Quite eclectic. Exited 18 yrs ago. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton > I heard this recurrent anti-communist message just literally yesterday. It's regular John Bircher, et al. propaganda. -- grok. > > On Sat, Jun 20,

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator. > Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass > mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering. > > Why physics did use t

Re: [Vo]:The return of the original "cold fusion" ??

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I have been trying to get any replicator or cold fusion experiments to > test for muon during the last six months. I have concentrated this best > effort of persuasion on MFMP, but they are highly resistant to the idea. I > do not understand why

Re: [Vo]:Article: Is dark energy a real thing?

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:37 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Does this mean that a few Nobel prizes were awarded a bit premature? Are > they ever recalled once proven in error? > All these scientists really deserve the Nobel Prize for Literature. Because it's all fiction.

Re: [Vo]:White house report on AI

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:02 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Che, > > > The Durants do not judge one system better than anther but report what > happened. > Oh, that would be utterly, completely untrue. But we do get a lot of such claims of impartiality from those who support the st

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

The problem remains the *capitalist* organization of society. NOT automation. No capitalists are EVER going to fix it. That's a job for Socialism. Opinions to the contrary are worthless. On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/technology/amazon-m

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > Che, > Venezuela, Cuba! > How about accepting bygones, live today and plan for the future. > Have a goal. > Maybe moving to Venezuela could be yours? Bring some food as they are > starving. If you like the system , w

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > Che you hit the wrong guy. The bureaucracy cannot take any thing from me > except my pension. They try but . . . > You believe in an idea almost 200 years old andays refuse to see that > communism has failed since the 1850i

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Che, you are barking on the wrong trees. I think it would be better to > find a better tree. Like me :P > I don't even know what you getting at, fella. Stick to Cold Fusion, eh? It's a subject we all share and know pr

Re: [Vo]:daily LENR Info

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/12/dec-07-2016-lenr-info.html > > peter > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > Still positing a capitalist solution to problems which can only be solved by World soci

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

there's an audience. So it's not really possible in this totalitarian society to simply assert inconvenient truths about Capitalism -- and posit the alternative -- without being attacked. I wonder what that sounds like, eh..? > > > 2016-12-07 16:12 GMT-02:00 Che : > &g

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > Che > What else. do you know? > I guarantee that I have seen more of communism than you. > I guess what you meant was you have no argument. > Lennart > What's it like to be a senile old fart, Lennart? > &g

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

s will. Whatever they believe. I've clearly and logically stated as much. I don't shy away from trouble. Ask the local deathsquad. > > > 2016-12-07 20:58 GMT-02:00 Che : > >> >> >> The immediate problem is that such social types usually intend to get

Re: [Vo]:LENR as jigsaw puzzle and/or LEGO

In case anyone is forgetting: the mere existence of some 'free energy' water heater would suffice, for these processes to finally be taken seriously by most of society. All the resources you needed would THEN simply become available. Fuck the secretive, proprietary Rossi. On Sun, Dec 11, 2

Re: [Vo]:Article about Artificial Intelligence in NYT

> There are an infinite number of steps between each level. > In the Universe of all material phenomena in general (i.e., so-called 'meta-physics' being pure Idealist wankerism), its development must necessarily be open-ended and emergent. How could it be any other way. So there will always be _f

Re: [Vo]:Article about Artificial Intelligence in NYT

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Ron Wormus wrote: > Robins do this also. Nothing I have found can dissuade them from crashing > their reflection. I had one persist for over two weeks. While robins do cooperate while food-gathering, they and bluejays and the like do not seem to possess what e.

Re: [Vo]:Carl Page discusses cold fusion

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > See: > > "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Work And Could Supplant Fossil Fuels" > > https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26753 > > This is a positive article. > > I gather this person is the brother of Larry Page, the founder of Google. > So I

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on vortex-L? At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal. On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning up > on

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

;s the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...) Damned 'private-property' interests. Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best... Pfft. > AA > > > > On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote: > > > Have I missed something? Why is Ro

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:39 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Che, > Have you ever done anything apart from bitch about others failings? Well. > do tell us. > Stop being so predictably defensive and just answer the questions which MOST people will no doubt be asking -- especially after th

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Is this what we are all supposed to understand, now -- or is this just your considered speculative opinion? On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > @Che > > Your expectations about how LENR will evolve is almost universally held > but unfortunately incorrect. LENR produc

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern wrote: > > Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff! > That's about the most sense I've read here today. > > ------ > *From:* Che > *Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > As an ideologue, remember to alway keep your feet planted firmly on the solid foundation of realism. Frankly, I'll take an ideological stance over crass, money-grubbing commercialism, any day. Look where that's got us.

Re: [Vo]:JCMNS Vol. 23 uploaded

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Bob Higgins wrote: > > >> My primary observation about the Budko-Korshunov experiment(s) is that it >> is reporting on a variable space that has never been reported to show XH. >> > > I hope you are right. > > You should inform the authors.

Re: [Vo]:People are worried: Amazon will replace Whole Foods workers with robots

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > vhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/16/ > people-are-worried-amazon-will-replace-whole-foods- > workers-with-robots/?utm_term=.8da06e571e18 > I'll state it again in this forum (in spite of the knee-jerk anti-communism around h

Re: [Vo]:People are worried: Amazon will replace Whole Foods workers with robots

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > If replacing workers with robots was Amazon's main angle, they would have > been better off going for Safeway or that type of mass merchant. why? > ...putting cans of soup on a shelf seems like a much easier challenge to > robotize than pick

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Eric Walker wrote: > > I don't think our approach has resulted in a skewing of the narrative > relating to the Rossi v. Darden story, except to filter out people who are > only seeking to pick a fight. Even those people's views have not bee

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Comments get moved to another thread without notification. > Commenters can get put "on probation" without notification. You > yourself are a moderator but it doesn't say that on your title. You > allow insults from some people but not

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > >> There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some >> of your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been >> banned from Vortex, like MaryYugo. >> > > Frankly, I do not unders

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene wrote: But ... the big issue is this: can an ill-conceived contract be interpreted > by a jury to overlook the actual results (to imply that only the ERV's > conclusion matters, not the substance of the report) ? > > The World runs the way it does, pr

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > It seems that Rossi has spent his adult life cultivating such people and > then stealing from them. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this, he may > have destroyed the last hope of funding for cold fusion. Unless the Texas > Tech proj

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: I personally believe that Rossi has at least ideas about how to make LENR > work, possibly he has a solution. Let him reveal that. He has promised > after the trial to show us. Rossi looks not as a fraudster to me. He act as > a passionate

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Axil Axil wrote: IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A. Fredericks at > http://restframe.com/ > > > Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he does > understand how the metalized hydride behaves. > > Keith thinks that the energy

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Time symmetry requires that the laws of nature operate the same when time > goes either forward or backwards. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_translation_symmetry > This typical thinking assumes much. Like 'doing the math' actually refle

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Everyone will have an opinion, but the details are not public. I suspect > that some of the details will seep out over time. > > My take on the major factor which led to the withdrawal of claims is that > Rossi's attorney finally realized that

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I think that, because things were kept in secret, it will keep going with, > perhaps, more steam (pun intended, LOL!!!). > Secrecy -- the utter bane of scientific research AND democracy -- is wholly a factor in all these undertakings because

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > I with the crook will be prevented to be a nuisance again... > whoever you think it is (I have an opinion). > I truly doubt matters are that simple. Was there, or was there not, cold fusion occurring, in Rossi's apparatus? At any time?

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I am sorry to report that there has been a considerable decline in > interest in cold fusion. The number of Google alerts about the subject is > far lower than it used to be. The number of people reading papers at > LENR-CANR.org is down. The

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > Scientific research should not be a popularity contest, right? >> > > Perhaps it should not be, but alas, it is. We have to deal with the real > world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. Tha

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > >> Jesus Christ, you bourgeois types... the POINT is to CHANGE the World: a >> concept you people ARE most absolutely unfamiliar with. >> > > I have probably done more to change the world wi

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Che Trotsky, you are ignoring material conditions, we do not know how Cold > Fusion works, and historical conditions, that is, we are in capitalism and > cold fusion is not trusted. Even in whatever form of socialism you > subs

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > There was a software package called "cold fusion" which can obscure the > results as well as the interest. LENR needs to repackage their name. > Maybe something like Anomalous Heating Event. > LENR: 'Legitimate Engineering? Not Really".

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > You don't know how to answer that, because that is the plain truth. > > 2017-07-06 23:49 GMT-03:00 Che : > >> >> Blah, blah, blah... not worth replying to. >> WTF am I ignoring. You're just

Re: [Vo]:Picking up the pieces

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Adrian Ashfield wrote: > > According to Abd... "All claims dropped on both sides. It is as if the > suit was never filed. > > The IP and license are not mentioned. As Rossi was apparently pleased I > deduce something has changed in the ownership of the IP or the mu

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

In case youse hadn't noticed -- this ENTIRE saga has moved FAR, far beyond mere scientific research (no surprise, there). This little drama involves, politics. It involves 'The Law'. It involves public relations, popular Science, and not a few other contexts. So it does NOT make some people here l

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

ur entire society. > > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Che wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alain Sepeda >> wrote: >> >>> I with the crook will be prevented to be a nuisance again... >>> whoever you think i

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Yup, this is just the first battle in the patent wars. It will last > decades until some billionaire steps in. > Oligarchic 'Capitalism' (parasitism) does not HAVE decades. But maybe none of the rest of us do, either.

Re: [Vo]:Picking up the pieces

> The Swedes have arguably lost as much as Rossi in having ruined careers > over their mistakes at Lugano. Yet, even now they have the incentive, skill > and the resources to replicate, but have failed to do so. > How is it that scientists should ruin entire careers, simply over having been wrong

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Clueless, DEAD wrong, AND delusional. All in one email post! Great work, Jed. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> If I succeed at promoting cold fusion and it becomes generally used, I >> shall play an important role in changing the world more than Marxism a

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > One of the cool things about cold fusion in a 500 year outlook is that it > makes for a very ineffective weapon. Even fire is a more effective weapon. > Oooh... I don't know about that... You know why potatoes became a crop of choice

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

They don't call Cold Fusion 'The New Fire', for no reason. On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Frank Znidarsic wrote: > That's good Jed. If you have read my work cold fusion is a step towards > control of all of the natural forces. I will have the same effect as > Oersted's discovery of electrom

Re: [Vo]:Picking up the pieces

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > There is one conclusion that can be drawn. Rossi submitted all kinds of information to the court docket, under oath. The claim against him was fraud. > > The legal burden of proof in a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence". IH

Re: [Vo]:Picking up the pieces

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > What the Rossi experiments has shown over many years is that LENR in a lattice is not workable because the reaction cannot be controlled. This lack of control makes the E-Cat technology untenable. Rossi has realized this and Rossi is will to let

Re: Fw: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > The classic case is the Aztecs. They were taken out over a few short months in a military engagement from a vastly outnumbered force, not by disease. There are a lot of factors involved in any historical developments -- most all of them

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > >> Clueless, DEAD wrong, AND delusional. All in one email post! >> > > That is not what I would call a cogent response, but I appreciate the > brevity of it. You needn't say more, since yo

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > Rossi is the latest LENR guy who has $signs in his eyes. Patterson was a solid example of that. I like the hope that MFMP offers to circumvent that problem. As soon as they verify a LENR experiment that many who have the means can do

Re: [Vo]:LENR Insights from Proton 21

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > http://rexresearch.com/stuff/stuff7/adamenko.pdf > There is another assumption connected with these sections and it refers to > cosmology. It is known that there is a great quantity of "dark" matter in > the universe, and it cannot be detected

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > I think the key is to just find nuclear products when you throw hydrogen and nickel together. There is no chemical reaction that is supposed to lead to nuclear products. 3 years ago, MFMP found gamma rays and then just blithely started

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

y matters. People should simply be turning to the likes of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, and putting their bets THERE. In OPEN Science. > Lennart > > On Jul 9, 2017 19:03, "Che" wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Jed Rothwell >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > Mary Yugo said he was contacted by investors looking to verify Rossi. He told them what to test for, and Rossi never had anything to do with them. The only way Rossi is going to find an investor now is to have the darned thing tested with

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Che wrote > > People here sneer at the likes of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial > Project.. but say what you will: its very OPEN [Source] nature is what > *will* at least keep it out of the grubby clutches of moneyed-interest

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > >> > Not so - no one here that I am aware of - sneers at MFMP. Or if they do - >>> they are misguided. >>> >> >> Well they have. Right here. Recently. >> > > Who s

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > >> Who sneered? Who are "they"? >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> What? You calling me a liar? >> > > Okay, have it your way: you're a liar. Now te

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:46 PM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote: > > 5 Jul at 5:50 PM said : So much drama for nothing... > > > does that count as sneering? No, actually. In this sense here, it is sneering when it is in fact _unwarranted_, and _gratuitously_ dismissive. However, there are situations wh

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

You want the last word? Make another useless email reply. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > >> What? You calling me a liar? >>>> >>> >>> Okay, have it your way: you're a liar. Now tell us who sneered. >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Brian Ahern wrote: > > > Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence. There is none. > > Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a witch doctor to lead the discussion. > > The sad reality is that

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > We shoud not be talking about 'cold fusion'. We should be talking about > proton decay. > I *totally* disagree. 'Cold Fusion' is clearly a term with mucho popularizing potential... and most importantly: **it is NOT all that inaccurate a term, c

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > >> This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold >> fusion' as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up >> in a dead-end -- where people can ge

Re: [Vo]:Santilli "neutrons"

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/06/05/ > 1008093/0/en/Thunder-Energies-Receives-Down-Payment-on- > Equipment-Producing-a-Directional-Neutron-Flux-and- > Predicts-Profitability-for-its-Construction.html > 'Directional neutron fl

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern wrote: > > > There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically impossible. All reports of them have never been corroborated. > The explanation would take hours, but Keith Johnson solved the problem in 1983 in the Journal of Syntheti

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern wrote: > > There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically > impossible. > > ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal. > https://en.wikipedia.org

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

hem w/o any friction. Maybe a future fyzix would handle that at room temperature too... Who can know the far future, eh..? And perhaps room temperature superconductors would be the necessary pre-condition for that to come about, too... (??!!) :D > > On 7/18/17, Che wrote: > > On W

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Looking up 'linear BEC' I'm getting battery circuits... wtf. :P On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Che wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley > wrote: > >> Wouldn't that be fascinating if High Temp Superconductors were >&g

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

> over time, FANO interference forces the waveform into a soliton. In other > words, long term confinement of EMF leads to the formation of a BEC through > interference. > I did not know that. But this is only a _virtual_ BEC, no..? > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Ch

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Che wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely >> requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible >&g

[Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

So... what do people think about the ECCO cold fusion project from an Indian team? The MFMP seem impressed by a claimed COP of 8. -- Forwarded message -- From: YouTube Date: Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:15 PM Subject: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video To:

[Vo]:Cold Fusion from Mumbai(?): ECCO Plasma Treatment

I like how the reactor vessel is tied down with nylon rope. Impressive amounts of energy coming out of apparently a few ceramic rods. On-demand. ECCO: Plasma Treatment

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

D resources people put into these sorts of things, *you* people really should be compelled to *give them reasonable benefit of the doubt* -- until 'something comes up' to -- justifiably -- indicate otherwise. Sheesh. Misanthropists. > On 7/19/17, Che wrote: > > So... what d

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

really DO exist. So AFAIC: there IS likely a conspiracy to derail ALL cold fusion research. And I wonder who'd be behind THAT effort... For that matter: who burned down Tesla's lab..? I'll give you three guesses. That's all you'd need. > > http://e-catworld.com/20

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

t; attitude? > 'I know you are -- but what am I??' I expect such juvenile games from people who start off poisoning the well, like you did. So be it. > > On 7/20/17, Che wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Kevin O'Malley > > wrote: > &

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

*accused* them of scamming. YOU started this, bub. But I have lots of experience with your type, understand... so don't think you're going to be able to misdirect anything here. > > On 7/20/17, Che wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Kevin O'Malley > &

Re: [Vo]:Rossi-Gullstrom paper published on July 18 on Arxiv.org

Is this yet another Rossi 'black' box..? Bah, then. Full disclosure. Open-Source Science -- which AFAIC includes Open-Source engineering, too. Forget becoming rich and famous. Just do it for Humanity. On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Nick wrote: > E-Cat QX Picture Posted in New Rossi-Gullstr

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

or your initial bad attitude. Like the ruling-class oligarchy and its minions: NEVER admit you're wrong. Right? In any case: I hope this guy and his team make it to Europa -- and to a new lab. And DON'T start 'pulling a Rossi' on the World. > > On 7/20/17, Che

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > You're saying EXACTLY the same thing I and others were saying on the > link provided, jerk. > At this point I do not CARE what you have to say: because the bottom line is, you injected 'it's a scam' into the thread, right at the beginning.

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > ECCO shows that the preparation of the LENR fuel is required for a > sucessful LENR reaction to take hold. > > This was true for the Papp engine all the way up to and including the > Rossi and ME356 reactors. > > We have to ask ourselves, what c

[Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now (again), if it hasn't. Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority The bot

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 2:57 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com < bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > TWO ideas about noble gases and fuel preparation: > > > >1. Being inert, they can be used in combination with H or D to diffuse >into a metallic lattice and cause mico-cracking with creation o

Re: [Vo]:Fission may be the best fit for future LENR

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Nuclear fission has a lot of critics, and rightly so ... but all of the > problems of fission derive from trying to control a multi-ton critical mass > of explosively enriched U in a steam pressurized reactor. Even with that > major design pro

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 2:45 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com < bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Che— > > > > You nailed my thought process. > > > > Look at the dots: and make logical connections with PRACTICAL scheme for > testing. This is IMHO the crux of R&a

Re: [Vo]:Fission may be the best fit for future LENR

do you block certain senders? > > > ------ > *From:* Che > *Sent:* Sunday, July 23, 2017 1:40 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fission may be the best fit for future LENR > > > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jones Beene wro

Re: [Vo]:The Papp engine and cavitation

Where's the best online source to go to for information on this? On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I am beginning to understand that the Papp engine was a cavitation based > device. > > In the 1960's Papp used water for his fuel. Papp must have produced water > crystals in the

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project just uploaded a video

lf must be continuously delivered to the reaction site dynamically, by some nano-tek means. On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Che wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 2:45 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com < > bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Che— >> >&

Re: Fw: [Vo]:The Papp engine and cavitation

the Papp engine works for years. It >> is a mystery. This is no information available on how it works. >> >> A clue to the production of a plasma based explosion is now coming from >> Holmlid's experiments. Holmlid has just discovered that a spark can be used >>

Re: [Vo]:Fission may be the best fit for future LENR

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:17 AM, John Shop wrote: > As the smoke cleared Brian Ahern mounted the barricade and roared out: > > I use outlook for e-mails.How do you block certain senders? > -- > *From:* Che > . . . > > > Best to filter

Re: [Vo]:The Papp engine and cavitation

So.. 'Building 7' is for 'conspiracy nuts' for instance, huh? You KNOW what it means, when you look at those videos of Building 7... No wonder I have no respect for the 'middle-of-the-road' (i.e. cowardly, self-interested) middle-class. Phil Ochs had a song about youse people. And no wonder it's

Re: How to filter messages - was Re: [Vo]:Fission may be the best fit for future LENR

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Aldo Maggi wrote: > Well, I use Linux Evolution and Claws-mail and not Windows Outlook, but > I do not think that the system is different: > write a filter adding the addresses of people whose mails you do not > want to read (e.g. comandantegri...@gmail.com ) and

Re: [Vo]:Fission may be the best fit for future LENR

Now they're invoking their gods... and the fact that we can't even _really_ tell if this guy below is *kidding* or not, speaks volumes about the state of the USA and Science, today. It also speaks somewhat about the state of this e-List. In any case -- the troll who began this gratuitous anti-comm

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Rossi is not as sure footed as he lets on. His small low temperature > reactor cluster did not work at the start of the 1 year test. Rossi had to > substitute the quad 250,000 watts tiger reactor cluster. To this day, Rossi > still doesn't under

  1   2   >