Duplication of my US Patent that you asked for is right here http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/050516/21a58906579d6465ecba4d32a91a3c30.html?.v=2
Just because people would rather first ridicule the idea and then steal it does not make me paranoid Jones - but it has made me more critical of the so called professionals which I no longer have "Blind" faith in, unlike you. I feel that even if you did watch the Puthoff video, you will never apologize for your inappropriate actions toward me. You are too lazy to go to your local library and use the public Internet connection to view the video, yet you continue to call me a paranoid conspiracy nut. That's OK, its not your fault - it is just the way people behave these days, hypnotized into not seeking the truth - and ignoring it when they find it.
Chris
Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Christopher Arnold wrote:
> you sound upset with me for some reason.
Chris,
This is not personal - this is about a prevalent
attitude which unfortunatley exists throughout this
general field of inquiry, LENR - which field has
enough problems of credibility without adding another
issue which goes deeper than it should: paranoia. I
was only speaking to that broade "conspiracy issue" in
the post before, and to what is known as "inventor's
disease." I tried not to personalize this by not
including your name then.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone
expressing dissatisfaction with the problem of not
getting the funding which you need to continue with
your work - but it serves no good purpose to
continually post disinformation and insinuation to the
effect that there is some hidden "conspiracy" outthere to suppress or steal whatever it is which you
have invented.
Quite the contrary - show just one replicated
experiment, just one, where OU is clearly seen and the
funders will "beat a path" to your door. You will not
need an eBay auction - they will be lining up at your
door with checkbook in hand. This is already happening
with Naudin/Moller and guess what - they will get huge
funding with a seventy year-old idea, which may not
even be patentable. But they are interested in a GOAL,
which is not personal enrichment but really goes all
the way to "saving the world" from the
self-destruction of over-use of fossil fuels. And
there is nothing wrong with a pesonal-enrichment
agenda either, so long as that is not the ONLY goal.
That is the baseline fact - plain and simple - and
let's not quibble: you may have invented something of
significant value - say for converting waste to
hydrogen or whatever- but you have not sh! own any
evidence whatever that you have created a breakeven
energy device - and if you have the results in hand -
your failure to show real experimental confirmation is
extraordinarily hurtful to your own efforts to market
the device.
That nebulous "conspiracy" which you keep insinuating
is "out there" with Hal or Richard Hull, or the oil
companies, CIA, the Canadians, or whomever, to
somehow suppress or steal your work makes no sense to
anyone - and must therefore be a product of you own
imagination and paranoia. That is not the way the
world works. We have a court system that punishes
companies for theft - even $50 billion companies like
Enron cannot buy protection. It might take a while,
but that is the way the system works. And this
"paranoia" is unfortunately proven to be an integral
part of what Bill Beaty has described as "inventors
disease". Please read the essay:
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/rules1.html
!
If you indeed do have a proven and patented energy
invention, then it is absurd to think it will be
stolen because you have posted the results - this in
fact reeks of the Joe Newman attitude - which is this:
when you can't prove that your device works as
claimed, then just insinuate some massive mysterious
conspiracy and throw in a few letters like CIA or GM
or GE or even Minnekota. Nobody with any sense
nowadays even takes a second look at Newman, because
of this silly attitude of paranoia and distrust- and
sadly the same thing could happen to you if you
continue to follow his lead on this. The difference is
that you probably have something (actually even Newman
might have) - but paranoia keeps it from getting out
into public view.
> So, if you still think Hal did not see the
Chernetski device
Hal stated clearly that he saw it, AND tried to
replicated it, AND he found the measurement error and
reported that ! to the inventor. End of story, since
Chernitskii passed away and was never able to prove
that it worked with better measurement. What good does
it do anyone- to now claim that Hal was not telling
the truth, that Hal has some hidden agenda or whatever
- when there is no way to prove or disprove that the
device ever worked - other than to build one which
does work. Hal went to that expense of trying to prove
it worked and found measurement error. There is NO
conspiracy here.
> Farnsworth's Fusor never produced Fusion, now that's
> news to me as well.
Farnworth device produced some fusion - sure - but
nowhere close to breakeven - excuse me from leaving
out the key word. It never came within one thousandth
of one percent of fusion **breakeven** - yet you want
to portray this as some kind of conspiracy to keep it
silent. Anyone on vortex can produce some neutrons and
some small evidence of fusion - the crux of the
! problem is BREAKEVEN fusion or better yet OU fusion or
OU heat without fusion. Farnsworth never came close to
any of the goals - but he was heading in the right
direction, and certainly we all wish ITT had not
pulled the plug - but they were looking at oil at $2
per barrel then - it is no wonder that they dropped
funding and no evidence of a conspiracy either - just
Economics 101 (which is to say= shortsighed
economics).
Richard and Scott and literally dozens of others, even
high scholl students have replicated the Fusor and
produced many neutrons, anyone can do that - the
problem is or getting close to breakeven - or else, in
getting to OU without real fusion as in the
Moller/Naudin device.
Richard will show you his clear results of 10^5 and
more neutrons per second from deuterium- no problem.
Philo even got to 10^7 neutrons per second. Well-known
- no conspiracy there. You can even buy a device on
line that will do! 10^3/sec for a few thousand
dollars. The problem is - and this is what you
apparently have not digested yet - that this is a lot
of neutrons but is still years away - 10^7 is actually
about 100,000 times away from energy breakeven, if
memory serves.
Fusion is easy - "fusion-breakeven" is difficult; and
that is where LENR comes into play as it 'lowers the
bar' for P-in to P-out measurement. But in your case,
Chris, no one has a clue to how far from breakeven you
actually are now, because your will not publish the
results in clear talbes (as Naudin does), or allow
independent replication.
The point being - THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY to steal or
suppress your work - in fact, you are your own worst
enemy if you believe that. If you really have reached
breakeven in a fusion device, or if you have and OU
ZPE device - then there is no alternative but to
encourage it be proven independently - just as
currently is being done with! the Moller/Naudin device.
Look at their new results online last week (thanks for
the heads-up, Jean L.).... Fantastic improvement in
just a month !! This is what it takes to get the
dollars flowing: Independent replication. Any other
approach is most likely going to back-fire.
Jones
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
