This image shows the RAR Energia device moving at its maximum rotational velocity: http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem51a.JPG (I'm not sneering, I'm snarking!)
- Brad On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: > > Oriani, Excess Heat, Fusion Technology: > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAcalorimetr.pdf > > Morrison-Fleischman debate about Fleischman's published calorimetry in > Physics Letters: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Please don't unsubscribe Mr. Franks. Your tact is unparalleled and would >> surely be missed. >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Franks <jf27...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> What is "wrong with the data" Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat >>>> data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the >>>> peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the >>>> test >>>> of time. >>> >>> >>> Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another >>> 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? >>> >>>> Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the >>>> effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about >>>> excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat >>>> measurements are wrong. >>> >>> >>> Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). >>> >>>> >>>> I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you >>>> quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the "Big 3" objections >>>> (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted >>>> for and answered between 1989 and 1994. >>> >>> >>> If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. >>> Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as >>> you seem to regard it as common knowledge. >>> >>> >>> You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, >>> activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting >>> "liked" on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. >>> >>> All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject full >>> of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting young >>> person would waste time learning useless "knowledge" in this subject. >> >> >
