It is extremely easy to prove within a few seconds that any of these devices work, without any kind of calorimetry, water heat or steam. Take it to the neutrino detector in Gran Sasso, Italy. The neutrino emission of Hyperion and Ecats must be extremely high, so there will be certainly a strong sign.
2011/10/15 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <[email protected]> > Mr. Murray sez: > > > Defkalion spokesman seems defensive, offering hot air... > > "Defensive"? "Hot air"? > > Rich, you did read the original author's, Gaby de Wilde's, statement, > didn't > you? Seems to me that DGT had every right to take exception to Gaby's brief > statement claiming that LENR is a field that we don't' know much about. > Granted, I suspect few argue that we understand "LENR" well. Obviously, we > don't. But that does not give someone like Gaby carte blanche to use "LENR" > in the manner he/she chose - as a convenient stepping stone to move the > line > of discussion over to topics that were of more interest to Gaby. > > When one reads Gaby's original post, one wonders if Gaby was really all > that > interested in discussing "LENR" in the first place. I suspect not. Seems to > me that Gaby briefly brought up the topic of "LENR" primarily as a > means-to-an-end, to transition to topics of discussion that he/she really > wanted to pontificate about. Gaby seems to be far more interested in > arguing > about whether Puthoff's Remote Viewing, ESP of Subatomic Particles, or > Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research are legitimate phenomenon. Well, > maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. However, that's not the point. > That's not what DGT is all about, so why should DGT have to put up with > someone uttering a brief sentence claiming that we know very little about > "LENR" when that very subject was clearly not what Gaby really wanted to > discuss in the first place. It's kind of disingenuous of Gaby to use "LENR" > in such a manner. Gaby's flippant use of "LENR" suggests he/she knows very > little about the "LENR" subject, and DGT decided to put Gaby on the spot. > > The issue for DGT is how to best present evidence for the existence of LENR > phenomenon in a traditional and scientifically valid manner. I suspect DGT > wisely chose not to build their case for the existence of LENR phenomenon > through the use of unorthodox data collection procedures, such as Remote > Viewing. ;-) Obviously DGT believes their line of Hyperion products is > probably exploiting some form of "LENR" phenomenon. To this end DGT claims > that that they are in the process of collecting "LENR" evidence in a > traditionally scientifically manner. Meanwhile, what does any of Gabby's > arguments have to do with DGT and their on-going efforts to come out with a > line of Hyperion products? > > > If true, the anomalies must be made available to the world > > immediately, as any breakthrough in nuclear physics is a world > > security issue... > > > Assuming the technology is legitimate, I suspect the information will in > due > course be made available to the world, particularly after all the patents > have been filed. > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
