date:20121231

So, muslims approve of marriage with sexual relations to a 9 year old 
menstruating little girl?'''


There are only 2 possible answers: Yes or No.  But let's see how Lomax will 
spin this.





Jojo

PS.  Note that 2 respected and venerated muslim sources (Sahih Muslim and 
Sahih Bukhari) have indicated that A'isha was indeed 9 years old when 
muhammed started having intercourse with her; yet you find Lomax still 
attempting to throw confusion as to A"isha age.  Yet he does not say exactly 
what age he believes A'isha was when muhammed consumated the marriage.


So Lomax, based on your "considerable" research into this topic, what was 
A'isha age when muhammed started having intercourse with her?








- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: ; 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity



At 05:31 PM 12/31/2012, Harry Veeder wrote:

Sorry I am confused.
What is considered false here?

A nine year old is barely out diapers

or

that muslims do not disapprove of sexual relations with a nine year old?


Obviously a nine year old is not "barely out of diapers."

Muslims disapprove of sexual relations outside of marriage, so the issue 
is marriage (and specifically the consummation of marriage).


Muslims disapprove of the consummation of a marraige with a girl who is 
not sexually mature, specifically mentstruating. It's considered rape, 
because mensturation is a condition for a woman having reached the age of 
consent. This is not the only condition; parents, generally, determine the 
right to consent as well, and girls are not automatically free to make 
their own choices until much later than nine. Marriage requires consent. 
Specifically, the woman must consent.


Muslims disapprove of the marriage of minor children without parental 
consent. (This is the same as U.S. law, generally.)


*Some* Muslims believe that the wife of the Prophet was nine when she was 
married, and assume that the marriage was consummated. But this is 
actually not solidly establshed. Nevertheless, *those Muslims* sometimes, 
from the example, allow 9 years old as a lower limit, but, in fact, the 
limit is sexual maturity -- or whatever standard is established by the 
society, *in addition to parental consent.*


(Technically, the wali consents, who is usually the father, but it can be 
others. A free woman sometimes appoints a wali, I've served.)


*Most* Muslims disapprove of marriage that is not recognised by the 
society in which the parties live.


Because of law in the United States, then, and in that place, Muslims 
disapprove of sexual relations with a nine-year old, no matter what the 
state of sexual maturity or parental consent. Under other conditions, 
their opinion might differ.


All these discussions were about the *limits*.

U.S. law, in some states, if I'm correct, still sets no minimum age for 
marriage, but requires judicial consent below a certain age, sometimes 14.

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Yes,  I believe Genesis and the Bible to be literraly true.  (Not that I 
believe Jesus was a chicken because he said he would like to gather 
Jerusalem under his wings.)  I believe it is true because I have verified it 
to be true.


Beleive it or not, I was and am an engineer.  I studied science.  And I have 
found that the Bible is a science book.  Not that it is exclusiviely a book 
about science, but it does contain enough science for one to verify.  If the 
Bible had said that the Earth was a big plate standing on the backs of 4 
elephants, then you would have a valid reason to call it a fairy tale.  But 
every statement made by the Bible about science has been found to be true. 
After having read it over 29 times, I have still to encounter a statement in 
the Bible that science has found to be categorically false.


I challenge you or anyone to prove me wrong on this.  But do it one at a 
time so that I can respond properly to it.  Do not cut and paste a blog from 
an Atheist web site.  I won't have time or the capability to respond to that 
in a meaningful way.







Jojo






- Original Message - 
From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


Thanks, Jojo, I appreciate your response to my query.

It seems to me that you have faith that Genesis is literally accurate. How 
did you find your way to this faith? Was it difficult? Easy?  How 
unshakeable is your faith?


Again,thank you for your response.


On Dec 30, 2012, at 11:09 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:


OK, since you asked, do not call me a troll by answering this.


Genesis chapter 6 is the source of this.  This passage is the reason why 
God destroyed the Earth with the flood.


6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the 
earth, and daughters were born unto them,


2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and 
they took them wives of all which they chose.


3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that 
he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.


4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when 
the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children 
to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that 
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it 
grieved him at his heart.


7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face 
of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls 
of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.





The Hebrew word translated as Giants is Nephilim.

The Hebrew words for Sons of God literally means "sons of Elohim".  In the 
Old Testament, only direct creations of God are referred to as Sons of 
God. Only Adam, Eve and Angels are direct creations of God;  but Eve is 
not a son, so that leaves Adam and Angels.  So, clearly this passage 
refers to fallen angels mating with human females producing giants and 
mighty men of renown.  Men of renown means these men are known by the 
various histories of the region.


Throughout history and in every culture - Romans, Greeks, Assyrian, 
Babylonian, Persian, Sumerian, etc, there is mythology relating to gods 
mating with human women producing extraordinary hybrids.  The Sumerians 
have their Annunaki.  The Greeks with their pantheon of gods which the 
Romans adopted wholesale more or less.  In these mythology, there is 
Hercules, half god half man with great size and strength.  There is 
Perseus, half god son of Zeus.  There is Atlas, half god, big and strong 
depicted as carrying the Earth on his back.  These are the men that are 
renown.


Google the video "Return of the Nephilim" by Chuck Missler.  Chuck used be 
in the Defense Industry.  He was an insider.  In his videos, he tries to 
document the link between Nephilims and modern UFOs.  Watch it and judge 
for yourself.


Of course, there are also other videos when you google "UFOs", "Nephilim", 
"Annunaki", "NWO", "illuminati", etc.  Some good some crazy.  Judge for 
yourself.


There are books about this subject.  I do not play video games so I do not 
know if there are.  I'm pretty this is as this is a common theme the 
illuminati wants to desensitize people on.






Jojo












- Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 


To: 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


Thanks. This is fascinating.

What are the sources for this information? "There is reason to believe 
that fallen angels are trying to breed with humans to create a hybrid 
race.  The Bible called these hybrids Nephili

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Now, we are getting into Philosophy.  OK, I'll bite since I am not too busy 
yet.



As to the issue of "unverfiiable source".  You need to define what you mean 
by unverifiable.  How does one go about verifying a history book like the 
Bible?  You call it unverifiable because you choose to not believe it 
despite evidence as to its integrity.  Archeologists have verified many of 
the statements in the Bible.  Long lost cities, locations, practices and 
cultures have been verified to have existed according to what is written in 
the Bible.  Most notably, the existence of theAssyrian Kingdom have recently 
been verified.  For decades, nobody can find proof of the existence of the 
Assyrian Empire and its capital Nineveh.  The Bible stood alone in its 
defense for the existence of the Assyrian Empire and its capital Nineveh. 
People scoofed at the Bible because it was "wrong".


Well, lo and behold, Nineveh has been found and replete with amazing 
cultural and archeological finds that establishes once and for all that it 
existed at the time period and location that the Bible said it was.  But, 
did that increase you belief in the integrity of the Bible?  I do not 
believe so.  You still call it a "fairy tale" and unverifiable.  Despite 
this kinds of discovery occuring hundreds and thousands of time, in all 
fields of science, you still call the Bible unverifiable.


The Bible has verifed that the Earth was round in 3 different locations in 
the Bible.  Yet, that is not enough to "verfiy" it.  There are literally 
hundreds of statements about scientific facts we did not discover until 
recently, that is in the Bible.  Yet, that is not enough to "verify" it.


What will it take to verify the Bible for you my friend?   You will finally 
believe that the Bible is true when you see Demons and fallen Angels descend 
down on you.  But by then, it would be too late for you.


You see my friend, you do not believe the Bible because you chose not to 
believe it; not because you CAN NOT believe it.  Facts are there if you 
choose to believe it.






Jojo









- Original Message - 
From: "Craig" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age



On 12/30/2012 11:09 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

OK, since you asked, do not call me a troll by answering this.


Genesis chapter 6 is the source of this.  This passage is the reason
why God destroyed the Earth


I think this is the source of the conflict:

Epistemology dictates that all knowledge comes from observation. When we
converse with each other in an attempt to exchange knowledge, we use the
Universe around us as a reference point in the exchange of truth. There
is no such thing as communication without this common reference point.
Words refer to existents and communication is act of exchanging
observations about the Universe. There is no other source for knowledge
since the Universe is all that exists, by definition. This epistemology
is at the foundation of science.

Using a book, such as Genesis, as a source of information is not valid.
It is heresay from an unverifiable source. Likewise, faith is not a
means of cognition, since there is no independent way of ascertaining
which faith is correct -- and what correct even means without a
reference to the Universe.

So Jaro, what you're seeing as insults, are challenges to your
epistemology. They are not insults, but you may interpret them as such
since such challenges rip at core beliefs. I also see a problem with
definitions you use. You use terms like 'God' and 'Angels' without
defining these terms. When I've spoken with Christians before on such
terms, they have never provided a definition. With 'God', they will
typically say that he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present, but
such descriptions defy definition. To define something is to delimit it
from other existents. Without a way to delimit its characteristics, it
simply cannot exist. There is no difference between something that is
'everything' and something that is 'nothing'. Which characteristics
would be different? There can't be a difference when there are no
identifiable characteristics.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

Are you saying your wife knows the exact school Obama went to?  What's the name 
of the schoold and its address please?  Can she descirbe what it looks like?  
When was the last time you wife has physically seen that school?




Jojo


Careful now, your next answer will reveal if you are lying about this or 
telling the truth as an actual witness of the school.


Note, this is not an insult.  I am forewarning you that I am attempting to set 
up a bait trap for you.











  - Original Message - 
  From: Alain Sepeda 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies


  my wife know that school.
  it is a Jakarta dowtown secular state school... 
  the country is muslim, yet there is 6 religion allowed, yet mandatory (you 
have to believe in one single god, with a paradise... that is the rule... 
whichever it is is your choice, even if like US there are political group using 
religion to reach power, and some increasing discrimination against minorities, 
nationally or locally)

  until recently when liberalisation inspired by humanrightists develop, the 
hijab (woman head scarf, which is much more sexy in indonesia than in saudi 
arabia) was forbidden in state school...

  and whatever you can say, it is clear Obama speak more like an evangelist 
priest...
  A bit shocking for a secular French, but if american love that style, it is 
their own freedom...
  Our choices since 10 years are criticized by more than 50% of the population, 
so we cannot give lessons... ah ah ;-)

  note also that what is evident from France is that US president is very weak 
because of the constitution, by design ... parliament rules and is 
republican... 

  It is clear that US fear their government...

  whether it is good or not is not to be discussed... I just remind facts.


  2012/12/31 Jojo Jaro 

His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia.  You 
can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim.





Jojo


- Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 

To: 

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:14 AM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies


On what evidence do you base your assertion that President Obama is a 
Muslim?


On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:


  No, I am not stating that the "President" is a muslim.  I am stating that 
the Usurper is a muslim.  We currently don't have a legitimate president; we 
have a usurper sitting on the throne.

  Why doesn't he just come clean?  He could do this with a single 2 minute 
phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC.  He can 
quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill  the Birther 
movement and start the healing of the nation.  He can do all that in 2 minutes, 
yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to block access to 
this vault BC.  Why block access to such an innocuous document?  WHY indeed?

  He won't because he can't.  This is the pattern of a corrupt leader 
proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.


  Jojo



  - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 

  To: 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies


  Are you stating that the President is Muslim?


  On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:


Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything 
related to previous and current presidents.  Anything about this current 
president is covered by this order.  IF anyone wants to release information 
about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) 
or thru the Presidential counsel;  for approval. This is the veil of corruption 
surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are gving him a pass.  
I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it helps prop up his 
illegitimate usurper muslim president.



Jojo



- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: ; 
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies



  At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately 
after he took power.  The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order 
13233.  But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require his 
approval before release of any information, obstensively because of "Executive 
Privelege".


  Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly.

  "Release of any information." Sure. "Any information" of what type, 
where located, and by whom?


Now, Lomax, who is lying now.  Do I get my apology now?  What 
exactly have you debunked?   you blatant liar.


  No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Or

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

While what you are saying about Indonesian schools may be true today - I am not
knowledgeable about the current school system in Indonesia, so I will not
debate that.

While that may be true, it surely wasn't true in the 70's when Obama went
there. Records show he was registered in that school as a muslim.

One more thing, he was adopted by an Indonesian muslim. If he was adopted to
be an Indonesian, he would have automatically lost his U.S. citizenship and
gained Indonesian citizenship and automatically became a muslim. In Indonesia,
you gain the religion of your adoptive father. Indonesia does not have and
never had a "Dual Citizenship" program with the US. Which means that he would
have had to reacquire his US citizenship when he reached 18. He had to do
something to gain back his US citizenship. Which automatically made him a
naturalized US citizen, not a Natural-Born US citizen required by our
constitution.

One of my cousins was in the same boat and he was born about the same time as
Obama. He was born in U.S. soil (New York) but his parents brought him back to
the Philippines. By US law, as a minor, he has no official citizenship status
if there is a question as to his citizenship. In my cousin's case, he was born
on US soil to Filipino parents. Hence, his citizenship status was in limbo,
until he can make a decision when he turns 18. He can choose to be Filipino or
US citizen.When my cousin turned 18, he had to go to the US Embassy to
choose US citizen and get his papers (passport). He is considered a
Naturalized US citizen. A person that has to take action to gain US
citizenship is not a Natural Born US citizen. This is the status of Obama even
if he was indeed born in Hawaii. He would still be a Naturalized US citizen
and hence unqualified.

So, as you can see, Obama is unqualified to be POTUS on many fronts. The
argument about whether he was born in Hawaii or not is just one aspect of his
qualification (non-qualification) to be POTUS.

In a free society like America, such questions about his qualifications should
have been vetted openly. If there was even a hint as to his qualifications, it
should have been settled publicly and openly. Why don't people take this issue
seriously. Even if people think that his BC was original and valid, people
should still be calling for it to be settled once and for all. Open up the
vault copy. No other steps or half measures will do. Great controversies
require great measures to settle. Let the Birthers see it and it they are
wrong, you get the chance to humiliate them to your heart's content. If I am
wrong about this, I'm sure I will have great shame and tuck my tail between my
legs and go away quietly.

Jojo

- Original Message -
From: de Bivort Lawrence
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

The earlier posting on "muslim" schools is confused.

Some "Muslim" schools have a curriculum that is based solely on the Qur'an.
This kind of school would only attract non-Muslim students interested in the
Qur'an, or in the culture of Islam.

Some "Muslim" schools have a standard secular curriculum, and are attended
mostly by Muslims, thus confusing some into calling them "Muslim" schools.

Some "Muslim" schools are merely called such because they operate in a Muslim
country, like Indonesia. This is like calling US public schools "Christian"
because they operate in a predominantly Christian country.

To suggest that President Obama must be a Muslim because he went to a
"Muslim" school in Indonesia is a statement that at best is meaningless.

On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

Indeed. There is a Catholic school in Birmingham, UK, where the majority
of pupils are Muslim

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birminghams-catholic-school-where-90-of-the-pupils-231115

Nigel

On 31/12/2012 04:40, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Yes, "Christian" catholic schools are more tolerant of other faiths, but
not muslims. You can not go to a muslim school like the one Obama went to
unless you are a muslim.

Before Lomax spins this again; may I simply ask readers to research this
on their own to see which of us both is lying.

Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

Other than what he wrote in his autobiography, no.  But his autobiography is 
a revealing work into his psyche.


He mentioned that the muslim call to prayer was the "most beautiful" sound 
he has heard.  High praise from a supposed "Christian".  Beautiful in that 
the music or melody is beautiful, but beautiful in the sense of worship it 
inspires.


I can tell you now that a true Christian will NOT find a call to prayer to a 
moon god "beaustiful" and inspiring.




Jojo






- Original Message - 
From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies


This is incorrect, Jojo.

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that President Obama is a 
Muslim?



On Dec 30, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia. 
You can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim.





Jojo


- Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 


To: 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies


On what evidence do you base your assertion that President Obama is a 
Muslim?



On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

No, I am not stating that the "President" is a muslim.  I am stating that 
the Usurper is a muslim.  We currently don't have a legitimate president; 
we have a usurper sitting on the throne.


Why doesn't he just come clean?  He could do this with a single 2 minute 
phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC. 
He can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill  the 
Birther movement and start the healing of the nation.  He can do all that 
in 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money 
to block access to this vault BC.  Why block access to such an innocuous 
document?  WHY indeed?


He won't because he can't.  This is the pattern of a corrupt leader 
proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic 
forces.



Jojo



- Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 


To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies


Are you stating that the President is Muslim?


On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything 
related to previous and current presidents.  Anything about this current 
president is covered by this order.  IF anyone wants to release 
information about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the 
corrupt right henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel;  for approval. 
This is the veil of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and 
people like lomax are gving him a pass.  I'm not surprised as lies are 
OK for Lomax as long as it helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim 
president.




Jojo



- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 


To: ; 
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies



At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after 
he took power.  The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive 
Order 13233.  But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically 
require his approval before release of any information, obstensively 
because of "Executive Privelege".


Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly.

"Release of any information." Sure. "Any information" of what type, 
where located, and by whom?


Now, Lomax, who is lying now.  Do I get my apology now?  What exactly 
have you debunked?   you blatant liar.


No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you 
claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive 
Order did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically.


[...]
Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot.  Let's see what spin and lies 
you'll come up next.


You've acknowledged all along that what you are doing is spinning. You 
have acknowledged that you say things that aren't true to create a 
dramatic image. That's "spin." But I'll give you a fair chance here.


You claimed that this document is an Executive Order which blocks 
access to Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to 
which you are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, "If he fails 
to apologize, or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, 
effectively, a liar."


Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to 
apply to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here 
right in front of us, no more research should be necessary.


But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive 
Order that blocks public access to the "vault" birth certificate. That 
access is blocked by Hawaiian law on the privacy of records (as is 
true, I think, in all states). Some access to records is blocked by 
HIPAA, a federal law relating to the privacy of me

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

No my friend, no family members or caregivers were alcoholics.  10 for fishing 
effort though.  

No, I did not drink alcohol when I was younger because I was allergic to it.  
Since, I never acquired this bad habit when I was younger, I never thought of 
acquiring it now.  Besides, after my conversion, I now find no redeeming value 
or pleasure in drinking beer.  I hate the taste and it's deleterious effects on 
the body and my health.  Drunkeness is a cause of many sins and problems in 
one's life.  I have even limitted alcohol consumption of those people who work 
for me in my farm.   They don't know it yet, but I have just done them a great 
favor that will benefit them for the rest of their lives.




Jojo

PS.  I consider this insult to be your last word that I said I would allow.  
Please refrain from further insults.

Note, that I have not insulted you in this response, so you do indeed have the 
last insult.







  - Original Message - 
  From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:36 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:List integrity


  I went digging through my Junk eMail folder to find what I was sure would be 
a response from Mr.Jaro.

   

  Mr. Jaro replied:

   

  > And the provocations and insults continue.  

  > 

  > Since you are clearly incapable of conprehending simple English

  > prose.  I will spell it out for you.  I drank a total of about 5

  > bottles of beer and I drank all of it before I was 20 years old. 

  > I haven't touched alcohol since then to the present.

  > 

  > Jeepers, I thought I was clear.  No wonder, we have a lot of

  > conflict here.  People's comprehension skills are just lacking.

   

  Indeed, I'm a flawed individual, Jojo. Nobodies' perfect... certainly not me. 
Thank god for that.

   

  So, you don't drink. Rigidly so.


  It strikes me that something very powerful about the effects of alcohol. more 
precisely the effects of alcoholism, must have made a huge impression on you. 
Why have you deliberately chosen not to touch a drop of alcohol since you were 
20 years old? Did you personally witness the destructive power of alcoholism in 
some of the immediate care givers who were supposed to have been raising you?

   

  What happened? What did you do? More to the point, what did they do to you?

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  www.OrionWorks.com

  www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

I believe I've responded to it my friend, just not directly to you.  My 
response to you was the same response to Lomax.


My response is repeated below:

Just because the practice of sexual relations with 9 year old little girls 
was common, widespread and accepted in the Arabian peninsula during the time 
of muhammed does not mean that the practice is not CREEPY.  Hindus have 
corrected this same practice and stopped having sexual relations with little 
girls several hundred years prior to muhammed's time.  The Hindus did it, 
and yet a "progressive" prophet like muhammed did not stop this retrograde 
practice.


My friend, just because your neighbors do it, does not mean you have to do 
it.  Nor that it justify your actions.  Molesting 9 year old little girls is 
just CREEPY, abhorrent and wrong, whatever the time period, or whatever 
everyone else is doing.





Jojo



PS.  Note that this response is not a violation of my promise to stop 
insulting.  Note that this is not an insult, just true facts.  And this is 
also a post directed to me.


I said I promised to stop posting  unless there are insults or question 
directed to me.  This is a question directed to me.








- Original Message - 
From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true.

I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as they 
pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to the 
pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the practices that 
many people today criticize.


But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would 
respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than 
assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown in 
the posting to be flat-out incorrect.



On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:


On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 wrote:

At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:



Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same
corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year 
old
little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing 
it.

No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.



BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. What 
is
obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and 
over.

Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued to
emphasize it.



Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Harry

Re: [Vo]:List integrity


LOL LOL LOL 

At least one person is seeing thru the fog of spin and deception put up by 
Lomax.  My job is done and is an unqualified success.



Jojo


PS.  I have proven both statements to be true.  A'isha was indeed a little 
girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS as evidenced by her preoccupation with dolls. 
Which adult woman who is emotionally mature would bring dolls to her 
"wedding".   Of course, Lomax spins this saying that this is just like a 
Doll collector bringing dolls to her new home.  But, honest and objective 
people know that that is not the case.  She brought her dolls because she 
was still playing with it.


Second, Lomax have proven it to everybody that muslims do indeed approve of 
sexual relations with a 9 year old.  This is shocking to me cause I truly 
expected Lomax (being a moderate westernized muslim), to oppose and condemn 
muhammed's retrograde action.  Yet, to my shock and amazement, he actually 
defended and tried to justify it.








- Original Message - 
From: "Harry Veeder" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity



Sorry I am confused.
What is considered false here?

A nine year old is barely out diapers

or

that muslims do not disapprove of sexual relations with a nine year old?



Harry


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM, de Bivort Lawrence
 wrote:

That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true.

I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as 
they pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to 
the pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the 
practices that many people today criticize.


But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would 
respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than 
assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown 
in the posting to be flat-out incorrect.



On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:


On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 wrote:

At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:



Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same
corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 
year old
little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing 
it.

No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.



BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. 
What is
obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and 
over.
Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued 
to

emphasize it.



Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Harry

Re: [Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)

At 06:23 PM 12/31/2012, Harry Veeder wrote:

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM, ChemE  wrote:
>>
>> Holy crap
>>
>
> Only if it's Shiva's.
>

If I were Hindu should I be offended or just laugh?

If you were Hindu, I'd suggest laughing. I have a whole book about 
certain rather extreme practices among the "god-intoxicated."

We will not go there, here. Laughing, however, is good for the soul, 
if you aren't laughing *at* someone else. Unless, of course, it's 
*really funny.*

Laughing at myself, that's fantastic!

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

OK, Lomax, you have had your last word.  As promised, I am not insulting 
back and letting it be.


Please end this.  Unless you want to continue the exchange.



Jojo


PS.  Note that this response is a plea to end the insult cycle and not in 
any way insulting to anybody even Lomax.  Let the record show that I am 
ending this nonsense.  Let's see how long Lomax can refrain from insulting 
me some more.  Note I have stop calling Lomax a liar so that I am not 
insulting him anymore.


As for Joseph and I, you can believe what you want.  It's funny why Lomax 
finds it such a "astute observation" that he found out I was in the 
Philippines when I have very openly written about it everywhere.  Believe 
what you want Lomax.











- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: ; 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:List integrity


Below, Jojo promised to allow me "the last word." This is it. It really 
doesn't matter, though, because I'm done. anyway I already shut down 
response in other threads. There are issues raised in these exchanges that 
can be of value, but they are also basically off-topic.


The relevance I could assert is that they reveal a certain type of 
thinking that is not all that uncommon, it is merely extremely visible 
with Jojo. Jojo is demonstrating a hazard that we are all subject to. To 
avoid it requires care and a willingness to self-examine.


At 03:46 AM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
OK , Lomax, you are an expert in deception and twist and spin.  I bow to 
your skill and go away.


All Jojo would have to do is acknowledge errors or misinterpretations on 
his part. My "skill" is only hard work. It takes time to research the 
issues raised. It takes time to write something coherent.


And, yes, it takes time, though much less time, to read what's found. What 
trolls do, mostly, is waste time. Is Jojo a troll?


A troll is someone who has, as a motive, insulting or enraging others. 
Motive can be difficult to discern, but, observing Jojo since his 
participation in Vortex started to go south, yes, Jojo intends to outrage. 
This is connected, for him, with "responding to insults," i.e., to a 
belief that one must respond "in kind" to insults, and it is also 
connected to "correcting propaganda," except that Jojo has, many times, 
*introduced* highly controversial topics, connected with politics and 
religion, when he either thought he was being insulted, or he saw his 
*beliefs* as being insulted. He introduces them, obviously, because he 
wants to "insult back" someone, so he picks a topic that he thinks will 
outrage them. And he's not precise, the topic is a shotgun blast, with 
massive collateral damage. That the damage *usually* does not appear is 
only because the readership of Vortex is relatively small, and most people 
just shrug stuff off.


He knew and expected that his use of Vortex to promote his beliefs (or 
"correct the beliefs of others") would be disruptive. He referred to it 
many times. But he took nearly every excuse to do it.


I documented how this behavior first showed, previously, 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74768.html


The entire list can document this time that I am letting Lomax have the 
last word.  I will no longer post unless asked a specific question or 
insulted whether directly or in reference.



Please let this escalating round of insults end.  I'm tired.


The exchange will end as he says, if he keeps his word. It's not merely a 
"round of insults." That's what *Jojo* does.


Above, I describe what a troll is, and I provide some level of argument 
that could lead to a conclusion of trolling *in effect*. Is that an 
insult? Jojo has consistently claimed that his comments about Obama and 
supporters, about Muhammad and his wife Ayesha, about what a billion 
people worship as God, calling Allah a "Moon god," about people who are 
concerned about global warming, about Christians other than a narrow 
group, about people who accept the evolution of species, and about many 
participants on this list, are "just the truth," and therefore not 
insults.


I research topics that come up, and report the results. I don't research 
irrelevant topics and then dump the results here. On list-irrelevant 
topics, I don't start discussions here as new threads, other than in error 
or to pull an irrelevant topic out of a thread where it's disruptive. I 
have, many times, asked for errors to be corrected. In the absence of that 
correction, and where what I've said isn't obviously mere opinion, where 
it was based on cited evidence, I must assume that what I've written is 
either true or at least reasonable.


Yet Jojo has, many times, called it "lies." It's fairly clear that his 
reading comprehension is poor, he doesn't understand what sources mean. 
He's mistaken comment that is not about him at all, as being about him, a 
clear example came up yesterday with Axil. He calls my posts "lies" 
because he d

Re: [Vo]:List integrity


At 05:31 PM 12/31/2012, Harry Veeder wrote:

Sorry I am confused.
What is considered false here?

A nine year old is barely out diapers

or

that muslims do not disapprove of sexual relations with a nine year old?


Obviously a nine year old is not "barely out of diapers."

Muslims disapprove of sexual relations outside of marriage, so the 
issue is marriage (and specifically the consummation of marriage).


Muslims disapprove of the consummation of a marraige with a girl who 
is not sexually mature, specifically mentstruating. It's considered 
rape, because mensturation is a condition for a woman having reached 
the age of consent. This is not the only condition; parents, 
generally, determine the right to consent as well, and girls are not 
automatically free to make their own choices until much later than 
nine. Marriage requires consent. Specifically, the woman must consent.


Muslims disapprove of the marriage of minor children without parental 
consent. (This is the same as U.S. law, generally.)


*Some* Muslims believe that the wife of the Prophet was nine when she 
was married, and assume that the marriage was consummated. But this 
is actually not solidly establshed. Nevertheless, *those Muslims* 
sometimes, from the example, allow 9 years old as a lower limit, but, 
in fact, the limit is sexual maturity -- or whatever standard is 
established by the society, *in addition to parental consent.*


(Technically, the wali consents, who is usually the father, but it 
can be others. A free woman sometimes appoints a wali, I've served.)


*Most* Muslims disapprove of marriage that is not recognised by the 
society in which the parties live.


Because of law in the United States, then, and in that place, Muslims 
disapprove of sexual relations with a nine-year old, no matter what 
the state of sexual maturity or parental consent. Under other 
conditions, their opinion might differ.


All these discussions were about the *limits*.

U.S. law, in some states, if I'm correct, still sets no minimum age 
for marriage, but requires judicial consent below a certain age, sometimes 14.

Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airplane- LENR


At 04:27 PM 12/31/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Fission reactor airplane engines were developed in the 1950s. See 
chapter 18 of my book, and also:


http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htm


Half a billion dollars. What were they thinking?


Furthermore, you can make the cold fusion engine heavy and large, 
because the mass of fuel is so small.



All plans for fission/LENR planes rely on assumption that the price 
of Jet fuel would increase, but this is silly assumption! 
Fuel/energy usually gets cheaper over time if we are looking longer trends.



Cold fusion will be orders of magnitude cheaper than jet fuel.


Well, depends on the jet fuel and the cold fusion technique. I'd not 
care to bet on which way we'd go.


CF -- or any energy technology -- can be used to make hydrogen, which 
burns totally cleanly. What's the problem being solved here?


The nuclear aircraft used a reactor for a very hot process, heating 
air, basically. Cold fusion may not run at temperatures like that. In 
any case, the question is how the reactor converts heat to aircraft motion.


It might be simpler to make hydrogen as fuel, by electrolysis, 
leaving the apparatus for that on the ground. Or not. I assume we'll 
figure it out if and when we know more.

RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical


At 11:48 AM 12/31/2012, a.ashfield wrote:

Steven 
Vincent Johnson  wrote: "However, what is significant is that Rossi 
never allows his tantalizing evidence to be independently validated."


Actually he has. The third party verification of the Hot Cat was 
completed a couple of weeks ago and Rossi expects the results (which 
he has not seen) to be published early in February.


No, Ashfield, he hasn't. He has announced that he will. He says that 
it was completed. He says that they will be published.


I know it's too much to ask, this is Vortex, but I'll ask anyway.

IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT REPORTS SHOW FACT INSTEAD OF OPINION?

There! I feel much better, nothing like a little shouting for the 
soul. Now, where were we?



Likewise, Rossi claims his first 1 MW Hot Cat will be finished in 
February and the working unit made available for inspection a couple 
of months after it has been set up.  Considering the short time 
since the original E-Cat this would be remarkably fast if he does 
it.  The original 1 MW E-Cat is supposed to be sold to a customer 
for March delivery and may also be made available for 
inspection.  Rossi claims that the units delivered to the military 
were different.


"Claims." I feel much better now.

In my previous post I left out that Rossi states he has provided his 
new partner with his IP so there is no possibility of it going to 
the grave with him.


"States." You are getting good at this, Ashfield.

With so much in the pipe-line either we get solid news soon or it 
will look very suspicious.


Oh dear. Let's see, we've been seeing that and saying that for almost 
two years now.


Tomorrow, it will look suspicious.

It *already* looks suspicious as hell.

So it might be more accurate, to say something like,

If pigs fly, we'll have solid news.

Flying pigs, solid news falling from the sky. Who is going to clean up?

But maybe, someday, pigs will fly. First class or coach?

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

“Obviously, if it is not a nuclear reaction (there are other possibilities
besides fusion).”

It could be accelerated alpha radiation from a partial lowering of the
coulomb barrier.

Alpha radiation is just doubly ionized helium.

We can distinguish this helium production from fusion by that produced by
alpha radiation if we also observe transmutation of a heavy element into a
lighter one.


Cheers:  Axil


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 01:49 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote:
>
>  On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs <
>> mgib**b...@gibbs.com > wrote:
>> Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that
>> nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as P&F's. This theory was
>> falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur.
>>
>> Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no
>> theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion.
>>
>>
>> Close.  It is the most widely-accepted interpretation of currently
>> accepted physical theory that was falsified.  The theory itself is subject
>> to many interpretations, otherwise known as "conjectures" in more rigorous
>> fields such as mathematics.
>>
>> The conjecture "Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as P&F's."
>> is no more a product of theory than is the conjecture "Nuclear reactions
>> can occur in systems such as P&F's."
>>
>> So it is not the theory that has been falsified -- because as an
>> axiomatic system  there is no proven theorem of modern physics which
>> asserts "Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as P&F's."
>>
>> One can, of course, posit any number of arbitrary axioms and then call
>> the hodge-podge a "theory" in which one of the axioms is trivially proven
>> true because it is axiomatic.  This appears to have been the approach to
>> "science" taken by folks who receive the vast majority of funding for
>> science and technology.
>>
>
> Context here should be more revealed. The fusion cross section (rate,
> effectively) for standard deuterium fusion, caused when two deuterium
> nuclei collide, can be calculated -- quite accurately -- for a plasma,
> where the rate at which nuclei interact is known.
>
> The distances between nuclei in condensed matter (the "solid" state) are
> enormous, compared to the size of the nuclei. It seemed reasonable that
> fusion rate could be calculated for deuterium dissolved in palladium, by
> assuming that only two deuterium nuclei would iteract at a time. It's a
> 2-body problem, and the math is relatively simply. Generally speaking,
> making that approximation was thought to be adequate, and the approximation
> predicted that, even though the density and effective pressure of deuterium
> in palladium could be enormous, it was not enough to raise fusion rates to
> a measureable level.
>
> That's what Pons and Fleischmann knew when they began their work. Their
> work was not "energy research." They were not looking for an "energy
> panacea," or "free energy." They were doing basic scientific research, to
> test the assumptions being made about the application of quantum mechanics
> to condensed matter. They thought that what they would probably find was
> nothing. They were not naive, as the physicists often portrayed them.
>
> And then their apparatus melted down, and they had no chemical explanation
> for it. And they were chemists, world-class.
>
> They clearly did not understand what they had found. They believed that it
> was a reaction taking place in the lattice. For lots of reasons, that's
> pretty unlikely. It is a surface reaction. At least usually. We don't know
> all the possibilities. Because they thought it was a bulk reaction, they
> expected to find helium in the bulk. It wasn't found. That's one of the
> experimental facts that deposited a layer of egg on their faces.
>
> Helium is produced as a rare branch from normal hot fusion, and most
> people thought that cold fusion must be hot fusion taking place somehow.
> But it didn't really make sense. If one got over the enormous energies
> necessary to trigger hot fusion and managed to catalze it cold -- and there
> is a known method of doing that -- for there to be enough of a reaction
> taking place to account for the heat that was being observed, the neutron
> radiation would have been deadly. But a little helium would be produced,
> and with it, a quite energetic gamma ray. No gammas were seen like that.
>
> However, Preparata predicted that helium would be found to be the ash.
> Miles was following Preparata's theory. So, Mark, here we had a
> confirmation of theory. Does that mean that Preparata's theory was true.
> Not necessarily! There is a whole lot more that would have to happen.
>
> Helium is, in fact, found, but only in two places; evolved in the gas,
> roughly half, and trapped in the lattice, near the surface. When the
> original testing had been done on Pons-Fleischmann cells, t

RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

At 11:28 AM 12/31/2012, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

From Ashfield:

...

> ... I am puzzled by your [Jed's] statement that you have spoken to large
> investors who confirm the E-Cat works

That certainly is an intriguing statement coming from Mr. Rothwell.

Jed has said things like this many times. It's 
obvious that there are people convinced by Rossi, 
but what it means that they "confirm" that 
Rossi's device works is unknown. What did they 
actually observe? Jed may know, but this is 
ultimatey hearsay. It may be enough to convince 
Jed, because he knows whom he is talking about, 
and their reliability and caution, or, what would 
be more important *what they actually observed*.

What we also know is that it is possibe for a 
highly knowledgeable observer to see a Rossi 
demonstration, and to walk away convinced that 
the thing is real, and yet the demonstration was 
no, on review, conclusive. Not only were certain 
reasonable possibilities overlooked, it seems 
likely, from evidence we have, that those 
possiblities were actually happening. I.e., there 
was overflow water, not just steam.

(But we can't be sure.)

Whats frustrating about all of this, at least 
from my perspective, is the fact that we had yet 
to see anything from Rossi that seems to be even 
close to be considered a commercial product. All 
Ive seen (and read about) has been nothing more 
than a lot of hot air. Granted, there seems to 
be tantalizing evidence and lots of grandiose 
promises coming from Rossi. However, what is 
significant is that Rossi never allows his 
tantalizing evidence to be independently 
validated  that that certainly puts the kibosh 
on his credibility, and righty so. Maybe Rossi 
will finally pull a rabbit out of the hat. I 
sure hope so, but who the hell knows. I sure as hell dont.

Right. We don't know. Rossi promised the moon. It 
was obviously flamboyant and extravagant. Why a 
megawatt power plent? Why make it so big? Rossi 
could sell investigational devices, unapproved 
for general use, like hotcakes, if they would 
just do what he's claimed he could do.

The standard explanation, Jed makes it, is he's 
crazy. However, "crazy" doesn't increase my 
confidence! Crazy people will sometimes lie and 
cheat. It is possible to arrange truly convincing 
demonstrations, if the inventor can control the 
conditions and doesn't mind a little fraud. It's 
all in a good cause, after all. We'll have the 
real thing by next month, so it won't matter if we fudge a little this time.

Real inventors can think like that, and it isn't 
necessarily illegal! Depends on what *investors* 
actually see. But if he's crazy, there goes all 
restraint against defrauding investors!

The only conclusion that makes any sense to me 
is to speculate that these unnamed investors 
(who presumably have confirmed the fact that 
there really is something to Rossis e-Cats), 
are doing everything within their power to make 
sure that Rossi works out the flaws before 
potential competition catches wind. One of the 
best ways to help ensure that they stay in first 
place would be to continue to insinuate to 
potential competition the impression that 
Rossis organization is highly flawed, or worse, 
fraudulent. That seems to have been easy to 
accomplish! ;-) Dont bother looking into the 
matter. Move along move along nothing to see here.

Yeah, we've figured that one out. And I don't see 
a way to distinguish the difference between a fake Rossi con and a real one.

There is one way to deal with it. Make it 
dangerous. Vigorously puruse alternate research. 
Rossi has no patent rights on secrets. If his 
patent requires a magic sauce, it's dead.

Again, Im left with the assumption that there 
must still remain serious flaws and impediments 
to the commercialization of Rossis eCats. Will 
Rossi work out the flaws before the competition 
finally catches wind? It would appear that Mr. 
Rothwell doesnt think so. History may prove him right.

My crystal ball is here somewhere, I know it! I 
really need to clean this place up!

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic


At 01:49 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs 
<mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote:
Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that 
nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as P&F's. This 
theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur.


Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There 
is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion.



Close.  It is the most widely-accepted interpretation of currently 
accepted physical theory that was falsified.  The theory itself is 
subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as "conjectures" in 
more rigorous fields such as mathematics.


The conjecture "Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as 
P&F's." is no more a product of theory than is the conjecture 
"Nuclear reactions can occur in systems such as P&F's."


So it is not the theory that has been falsified -- because as an 
axiomatic system  there is no proven theorem of modern physics which 
asserts "Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as P&F's."


One can, of course, posit any number of arbitrary axioms and then 
call the hodge-podge a "theory" in which one of the axioms is 
trivially proven true because it is axiomatic.  This appears to have 
been the approach to "science" taken by folks who receive the vast 
majority of funding for science and technology.


Context here should be more revealed. The fusion cross section (rate, 
effectively) for standard deuterium fusion, caused when two deuterium 
nuclei collide, can be calculated -- quite accurately -- for a 
plasma, where the rate at which nuclei interact is known.


The distances between nuclei in condensed matter (the "solid" state) 
are enormous, compared to the size of the nuclei. It seemed 
reasonable that fusion rate could be calculated for deuterium 
dissolved in palladium, by assuming that only two deuterium nuclei 
would iteract at a time. It's a 2-body problem, and the math is 
relatively simply. Generally speaking, making that approximation was 
thought to be adequate, and the approximation predicted that, even 
though the density and effective pressure of deuterium in palladium 
could be enormous, it was not enough to raise fusion rates to a 
measureable level.


That's what Pons and Fleischmann knew when they began their work. 
Their work was not "energy research." They were not looking for an 
"energy panacea," or "free energy." They were doing basic scientific 
research, to test the assumptions being made about the application of 
quantum mechanics to condensed matter. They thought that what they 
would probably find was nothing. They were not naive, as the 
physicists often portrayed them.


And then their apparatus melted down, and they had no chemical 
explanation for it. And they were chemists, world-class.


They clearly did not understand what they had found. They believed 
that it was a reaction taking place in the lattice. For lots of 
reasons, that's pretty unlikely. It is a surface reaction. At least 
usually. We don't know all the possibilities. Because they thought it 
was a bulk reaction, they expected to find helium in the bulk. It 
wasn't found. That's one of the experimental facts that deposited a 
layer of egg on their faces.


Helium is produced as a rare branch from normal hot fusion, and most 
people thought that cold fusion must be hot fusion taking place 
somehow. But it didn't really make sense. If one got over the 
enormous energies necessary to trigger hot fusion and managed to 
catalze it cold -- and there is a known method of doing that -- for 
there to be enough of a reaction taking place to account for the heat 
that was being observed, the neutron radiation would have been 
deadly. But a little helium would be produced, and with it, a quite 
energetic gamma ray. No gammas were seen like that.


However, Preparata predicted that helium would be found to be the 
ash. Miles was following Preparata's theory. So, Mark, here we had a 
confirmation of theory. Does that mean that Preparata's theory was 
true. Not necessarily! There is a whole lot more that would have to happen.


Helium is, in fact, found, but only in two places; evolved in the 
gas, roughly half, and trapped in the lattice, near the surface. When 
the original testing had been done on Pons-Fleischmann cells, they 
had removed the outer layer of the cathodes, to eliminate absorbed 
helium from the air!


In any case, there are plenty of confirmed theories of cold fusion. 
It's just that there is no *complete* theory. There are theories than 
can allow a researcher to be confident that in a series of cells, 
they will see some with excess heat. There is a very important 
theory, that the anomalous heat in an FPHE experiment is produced by 
the conversion of deuterium to helium, with no other major products.


That theory, then, allows certain prodictions to be made. From the 
heat, one can

Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

I looked at the Papp cannon video again. At 3:00 in, Papp is filling the
cannon from one of the flasks. It has a sizable amount of clear liquid at
the bottom of that flask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tuk31pS2M&feature=player_embedded
Is that liquid clorinated water is see?

Happy New Year:   Axil

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Zell, Chris  wrote:

> **
> Hasn't Prof. Graneau identified arc explosions in water as
> overunity?  That a turbine should be engineered to take advantage of the
> effect as free energy?
>
> Papp did mention water vapor in his engine patent, if I recall correctly.
>
>  The Russians did a lot of work on the Electrohydraulic effect back in the
> '70's that was utterly ignored, as well.
>

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic


At 01:16 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote:

From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review.

"Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent 
and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not 
complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in 
a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in 
that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the 
experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and 
reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but 
valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary."


The theory tested was the standard interpretation of physics which 
states that it should be impossible for nuclear reactions to occur 
in systems such as those created by P&F.  This interpretation is 
testable.  It was tested.  It was falsified.


Dr. Norman Ramsey was co-chair of the DoE's cold fusion review 
panel.  He was was the only person on the the 1989 Department of 
Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion.  He 
was also the only Nobel laureate.


Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble to the DoE panel's 
report as an alternative to his resignation from the panel.


As Jed points out, the ERAB Panel was likely convened as a "cold 
fusion killer." When Pons and Fleischmann announced, all hell broke 
loose. Huge sums were being invested, routinely, in hot fusion 
research (and buckets of cash are still being poured down that 
rathole). The administration wanted the issue resolved, and they 
wanted it resolved *fast*. So they formed the panel, and gave it an 
*impossible* task, to review the claims and judge them, before normal 
scientific process had a chance to catch up.


Pons and Fleischmann had been working for five years in secrecy. And 
they still had a process that often failed to show anything. To come 
up with a judgment of the entire field within a short time was 
utterly impossible.


The "unknown reasons" mentioned became known within a few years, the 
conditions associated with heat were *largely* identified, such that 
it can confidently be stated, now, exactly why the famous early 
replications failed. They were doomed to failure, and that was 
largely due to haste. The DoE had shifted discretionary funding into 
a crash confirmation program, not well-planned and inadequately executed.


But if Jed is right and the purpose was to kill cold fusion, it 
worked quite well. They could say, "We tried, but nobody could 
replicate it." In fact, before they finished their report, 
replications started to come in, but ... Jed is right, those were 
ignored. Miles had reported negative results at first, and they cited 
Miles. Then Miles started seeing positive results, and phoned the 
Panel. They did not return his phone call.


This is all history, and there are a number of excellent books about 
it. Beaudette, "Excess Heat, Why Cold Fusion Prevailed," is probably 
the best, but there is also Simon, "Undead Science." Simon is a 
sociologist of science who studied the history of cold fusion.


In fact, as of a few years ago, there were 153 reports of excess heat 
in these experiments, published in peer-reviewed journals. While in 
1989-1990, negative reports outnumbered positive ones, the balance 
shifted, as I recall, positive reports -- as judged by the skeptical 
electrochemist, Dieter Britz, outnumbered negative ones. The extreme 
skeptical position disappeared from the journals sometime around the 
2004 DoE report -- that almost tipped toward cold fusion. Storms' 
paper, "Status of cold fusion (2010)" (Naturwissenschaften) 
represents a milestone. NW is Springer-Verlag's "flagship 
multidisciplinary journal." It's been publishing for about a century. 
Einstein was published in it. And the article wasn't titled "Status 
of LENR." Storms came right out and called it "Cold fusion."


Because it's fusion, get over it

Practical? That is *entirely* a different question. Maybe. Probably, 
even, but do not hold your breath.

Re: [Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)

2012-12-31 Thread Terry Blanton

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM, ChemE  wrote:
> >>
> >> Holy crap
> >>
> >
> > Only if it's Shiva's.
> >
>
> If I were Hindu should I be offended or just laugh?
>
> Would you not consider Shiva holy?  Is so, it is academic.

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

At 11:25 AM 12/31/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Look, he said right here, in this forum, that he wants to see a 
"testable theory."

Jed, I must have missed that. Where did he say that?

Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs 
<mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote:

> Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable
> theory?

You are not seeing the forest for the trees, Jed. had made a 
statement about the general way that cold fusion was viewed. This 
quoted his original comment:
What did Peter originally ask? "when will enter LENR such lists as 
[Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]?" My answer was "When 
there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device." I 
wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question.

Gibbs was *incorrect*. Testable theory will not lead to LENR entering 
such lists, not directly. What would do it is a "demonstrably 
practical device"?

You went off on him like he was the Devil of Pseudoskepticism 
Incarnate. Gibbs doesn't know -- or didn't know -- that there already 
testable theories, and, more than that, theories that have been 
tested, but this, for him, was really beside the point. The real 
point, for him, would be a practical device, and theory is merely an 
idea that he has might lead to that.

Yes, he's not thought this all the way through. He will. Why not?

I'l tell you why he might not. If he finds that people who are 
knowledgeable in the field treat him as the enemy.

Read *all* of what he writes, Jed, not just the parts that push your buttons.

Gibbs has written:

In the case of cold fusion, phenomena have been observed that are 
believed to be the result of a novel physical process. No one has 
been able to explain what causes the phenomena and no one has been 
able to produce a device that is useful that uses whatever the phenomena is.

Almost true. We know what causes the heat. Deuterium is being 
converted to helium, and that's confirmed by the ratio found. It is 
*highly* unlikely that this ratio could be coming from anything else 
that that conversion, which is called "fusion." What is *not* known 
is the mechanis, the specific conditions that cause it and the 
specific pathway followed. There are theories attempting to explain 
the mechanism, but none are as yet adequate. That's all.

But you have consistently argued that cold fusion *will* have a 
world-changing payoff ... you're not in it just for the science, 
you're in it for the payoff.

You could agree with this or not. Gibbs is interested in the payoff. 
I'm into this for the science. They are not unrelated! It is possible 
that the payoff could arrive before the science, but not necessarily 
probable. Jed, you have an optimism that technology can solve any 
problem. Maybe. Maybe not. Science is not about making that 
assumption, it's about testing theories, and Engineering is the about 
taking what is known -- as to theory or measured results -- and 
applying this to make devices practical.

I think you may be right, Jed, but you must recognize that it's an 
optimistic view. It is not impossible that the nature of the 
mechanism is such that it's *inherently* unstable and unreliable. Bad 
luck, that would be, but not impossible.

Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims

Nope. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that 
there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to 
find out what's real and what's fake.

Jed, do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem? 
Gibbs is asking for help. How about helping him? He wants to find out 
what is real and what is fake.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. But we could start with what 
is real. Finding out what is fake can be much more difficult.

What's real is cold fusion itself, and most clearly the LENR effect 
that is the most solidly established is anomalous heat from palladium 
deuteride, accompanied with correlated helium production. It is 
preposterously unlikely that further research will reveal this as artifact.

Mark wants to know about practical devices. Nothing on the palladium 
deuteride front is yet truly a practical device, though some devices 
might be scalable. Until they are stable, scaling up would be 
*hazardous.* Mark might want to look at the Nanor, Mitchell Swartz's 
device. Not Ready For Home Depot, and not any time soon. Practical 
devices are being claimed with nickel-hydrogen. None of this has yet 
been confirmed in any reliable way.

But if anything is going to happen quickly, that might be where it 
will happen. It's worth watching, but there are obvious reasons to be 
*quite* skeptical.

That's where it stands. There are promising research lines being 
pursued. There are signs that the ice floes blocking funding are 
breaking up. If cold fusion had been funded as recommended in the 
first DoE review, we could be twenty years ahead of where we are. 
Science by

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic


At 11:38 AM 12/29/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote:

but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists?


When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device.

So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a 
willow-the-wisp ...


Ah, Mark, I'm afradi the court may revoke your poetic license, you 
were speeding.


Testable theory was, as I've explained before, not directly relevant 
to the question. There are testable theories.


But it's this "willow-the-wisp" thing that went over the edge. First 
of all, Jed Rothwell is an editor. Surely you would not deliberately 
present him with such a horribly mispelled word. It's 
"will-o'the-wisp." Ignis fatuus. It is legitimately controversial if 
that phenomenon, though widely reported, is real, because it has not 
been captured or measured. LENR is nothing like that.


The most-verified LENR is the conversion of deuterium to helium, 
using palladium as a catalyst, as discovered by Pons and Fleischmann, 
and popularly called "cold fusion." The reaction is known to produce 
two correlated products, heat and helium, and the heat produced is 
consistent with the heat expected from deuterium fusion. This has 
been confirmed by twelve research groups; the correlation was 
discovered and published by Miles in 1993.


Every group which has attempted to confirm this, as far as we know, 
has come up with consistent results. It is simply not a scientific 
controversy any more.


But what remains controversial, and what may have begun to afflict 
scientific consideration of cold fusion by 1990 or so, is whether or 
not cold fusion could ever be a useful power source. In theory, yes. 
However we don't know the mechanism, and it is possible that the 
mechanism is inherently chaotic.


What it will take to determine this is research. Research that 
includes what was recommended by both U.S. Department of Energy 
reviews. And more.


It became clear by 1990 that the phenomenon was, as far as anything 
demonstrated, "difficult to reproduce." The same cell, everything 
outwardly the same, would produce different results at different 
times. Of course, the cell materials were *not* the same. The process 
was changing them. We now know a lot of what happens in, say, a 
Fleichmann-Pons cathode, the material cracks, oxides form on the 
surface, what may have started as a simple palladium rod becomes 
extremely complex. Pure palladium, perfectly refined, doesn't show 
the effect. If the palladium cracks grow too large, the high loading 
ratio necessary for the effect cannot be maintained, it leaks out too rapidly.


It is literally a mess.

Further, as more and more people started looking where nobody had 
looked before, lots of odd phenomena were observed. Some LENR reports 
are probably artifact. Some things have been reported and were never 
seen again. In this environment, skepticism is understandable.


I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Cold 
fusion is far closer to being a practical device than things like 
plasma fusion or HTSC, and -- needless to say -- the Top Quark and 
the Higgs boson will never have any practical use. Yet no journalist 
would say these are "will-o-the-wisp" findings. Everyone knows they 
are real, even though they are of no practical use.


Jed does know how to spell the word.

Mark, what Jed is claiming is basically true. That is, he's probably 
right. We will probably see a practical LENR device before we will 
see hot fusion power. (There are already hot fusion practical 
devices, for example, a nifty handheld neutron generator. I'd love to 
have one.) *However*, this is by no means a slam-dunk.


I urge you to stay on task. You've said you want to know what's real. 
That's great. What is real is the body of experimental work that has 
been published. That includes, by the way, the famous "negative 
replications." Those establish, in fact, what *not* to do if you want 
to see the effect! Don't be content with a loading ratio of 70%, 
merely because you don't know how to go higher than that -- it wasn't 
easy and before Pons and Fleischmann, it was even considered 
impossible -- because it is now known that the effect begins around 
90%. Don't assume that pure, super-clean palladium will be better 
than worked palladium. Dennis Letts has developed a protocol that 
worked for him for many experiments, reliably, then stopped working. 
He hasn't identified why, yet, but he will. The Italians have 
developed methods of preparing palladium that are reasonably 
effective, and they are starting to understand through the study of 
the nanostructure, why.


Cold fusion research is *difficult*. That's what everyone told me 
when I started to think about doing experimental work. But ... it can 
be done. As you learn about the field, Mark, part of what is real is 
the expertise of people like Michael McKubre, a true professional. 
Don't confuse p

Re: [Vo]: the Papp engine

2012-12-31 Thread ChemE Stewart

Plasmoid sounds as goofy as a gremlin...

How about WIPE:
weakly interacting particle energetic

If they are massive like an orbiting hurricane particle we will call them
WIPE OUT

On Monday, December 31, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:

>
> Like other areas of LENR, the strength of the reaction is based on the
> details of the design.
> I the Papp reaction, the strength of the plasmoid can be relatively small
> when produced in air, but stronger when more reactive  electronegative
> gases are used in the reaction.
>
> In keeping with other LENR terminology, one can call plasmoids produced in
> air a Papp reaction plasmoid.
>
> A plasmoid developed in helium as a Papp+ plasmoid reaction and a plasmoid
> developed in a noble gas mix together with chlorine and water vapor as a
> Papp++ reaction.
>
> These reactions differ in strength in ascending order based on the exact
> chemistry and proportionality of the electronegative gas mix.
>
>
>
>
> Cheers:axil
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Eric Walker 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>> RE: underlying physical mechanism in Papp’s device…
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Perhaps it’s as simple as the volume changes that occur in piezoceramics
>>> under an applied voltage… only that its occurring in a gas where individual
>>> atoms/molecules are free to orient completely with the applied E-field
>>> resulting in maximum displacement; unlike in condensed matter where the
>>> alignment, and thus displacement, is restricted due to chemical bonding…
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised if this is something mundane.  If the mechanism
>> is known physics, as Heinz Klostermann says in Ruby's video, I do not
>> see how it would be overunity (unless one brings out the zero point field
>> or something similar).
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: the Papp engine

Like other areas of LENR, the strength of the reaction is based on the
details of the design.
I the Papp reaction, the strength of the plasmoid can be relatively small
when produced in air, but stronger when more reactive  electronegative
gases are used in the reaction.

In keeping with other LENR terminology, one can call plasmoids produced in
air a Papp reaction plasmoid.

A plasmoid developed in helium as a Papp+ plasmoid reaction and a plasmoid
developed in a noble gas mix together with chlorine and water vapor as a
Papp++ reaction.

These reactions differ in strength in ascending order based on the exact
chemistry and proportionality of the electronegative gas mix.

Cheers:axil
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
> RE: underlying physical mechanism in Papp’s device…
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Perhaps it’s as simple as the volume changes that occur in piezoceramics
>> under an applied voltage… only that its occurring in a gas where individual
>> atoms/molecules are free to orient completely with the applied E-field
>> resulting in maximum displacement; unlike in condensed matter where the
>> alignment, and thus displacement, is restricted due to chemical bonding…
>>
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if this is something mundane.  If the mechanism is
> known physics, as Heinz Klostermann says in Ruby's video, I do not see
> how it would be overunity (unless one brings out the zero point field or
> something similar).
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]: the Papp engine

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

RE: underlying physical mechanism in Papp’s device…
>
> ** **
>
> Perhaps it’s as simple as the volume changes that occur in piezoceramics
> under an applied voltage… only that its occurring in a gas where individual
> atoms/molecules are free to orient completely with the applied E-field
> resulting in maximum displacement; unlike in condensed matter where the
> alignment, and thus displacement, is restricted due to chemical bonding…
>

I wouldn't be surprised if this is something mundane.  If the mechanism is
known physics, as Heinz Klostermann says in Ruby's video, I do not see how
it would be overunity (unless one brings out the zero point field or
something similar).

Eric

RE: [Vo]: the Papp engine

2012-12-31 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

RE: underlying physical mechanism in Papp's device.

 

Perhaps it's as simple as the volume changes that occur in piezoceramics
under an applied voltage. only that its occurring in a gas where individual
atoms/molecules are free to orient completely with the applied E-field
resulting in maximum displacement; unlike in condensed matter where the
alignment, and thus displacement, is restricted due to chemical bonding.

 

-Mark Iverson

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: the Papp engine

 

Regarding document:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P4.pdf

This type of experiment can be explained by the formation of a water based
plasmoid which accelerates through the action of zero point energy and
electrostatic attraction of an ambient electronegative water vapor
atmosphere beyond the boundary of the circulating negative ion current
around the outer perimeter of the plasmoid.

See my post titled "Why use water vapor and chlorine in the Papp gas mix?"
for some background theory.

Of note: this paper shows the formula that defines the energy of the upward
moving piston as


E = mgh = 9.8mh


Where E is the energy in joules, g is gravity at 9.8  meters/second*2 m is
the mass in kilograms and h is the height in meters. 


Where:


1 newton - 1 kg/meter/second*2


A joules is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force
of one newton through a distance of one meter (1 newton meter or N.m) = 1
kg.m2/s2


Dimensional analysis is then


J (joules) = kg.m2/s2 = mgh = ((kilograms) (9.8)( (meters)/(seconds)*exp2)
(meters)

 

 Cheers:Axil



 

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Zell, Chris  wrote:

 


http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P4.pdf

 

Intermolecular energy, dudes.  Could be O2, N2 --- or water vapor.
Graneau did the math and the test results and got overunity.

Re: [Vo]: the Papp engine

Regarding document:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P4.pdf

This type of experiment can be explained by the formation of a water based
plasmoid which accelerates through the action of zero point energy and
electrostatic attraction of an ambient electronegative water vapor
atmosphere beyond the boundary of the circulating negative ion current
around the outer perimeter of the plasmoid.

See my post titled “Why use water vapor and chlorine in the Papp gas mix?”
for some background theory.
Of note: this paper shows the formula that defines the energy of the upward
moving piston as

E = mgh = 9.8mh

Where E is the energy in joules, g is gravity at 9.8  meters/second*2 m is
the mass in kilograms and h is the height in meters.

Where:

1 newton – 1 kg/meter/second*2

A joules is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force
of one newton through a distance of one meter (1 newton meter or N•m) = 1
kg•m2/s2

Dimensional analysis is then

J (joules) = kg•m2/s2 = mgh = ((kilograms) (9.8)( (meters)/(seconds)*exp2)
(meters)

 Cheers:Axil

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Zell, Chris  wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P4.pdf
>
> Intermolecular energy, dudes.  Could be O2, N2 --- or water
> vapor.  Graneau did the math and the test results and got overunity.
>

Re: [Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)

2012-12-31 Thread Harry Veeder

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM, ChemE  wrote:
>>>
>>> Holy crap
>>>
>>
>> Only if it's Shiva's.
>>
>
> If I were Hindu should I be offended or just laugh?
>
> harry


Russell Peters is a funny guy. This is mostly ethnic humor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W8aGgmn1A

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical


At 11:10 AM 12/31/2012, James Bowery wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
What irks me is when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers 
by Bockris, Gerischer or McKubre



The barrier I ran into with one of the founders of the DoE was a 
demand that I filter your bibliograpny down to only papers that 
appeared in journals of Science Citation Index.


That's no small task and I had to write a few perl scripts to come close.

I believe I posted the results of that to vortex-l when I first 
started participating in hopes that I could get some help 
penetrating this barrier.  I mean, its not every day you get someone 
that was hired by Carter to found the DoE's EIA and one of the few 
Carter appointees retained by Reagan to offer any conditions 
whatsoever under which he would consider a paper reporting 
replication of the P&F phenomenon worth his time to read.


Yes, yes, yes...  I know, it was my responsibility to disabuse him 
of his demand for such a filter, wasn't it?  Too bad.  Not gonna happen.


Ah, Mr. Bowery, you are jogging my memory

The fellow would really only need to read three papers, and the first 
two are the DoE reviews, both of which recommended research to 
resolve open issues, and the third is the Storms paper in 
Naturwissenschaften, "Status of cold fusion (2010)". That's a 
peer-reviewed review of the field, and, sure, it cites much material 
that is not in the Science Citation index, but we are dealing here 
with a field where for twenty years most research, no matter how 
solid, had great difficulty getting published in the standard journals.


But, of course, there *are* many papers so published. Too many, in 
fact, unless someone really wants to dive in fully.


Rather, what someone in the DoE would need to know is that there is 
basic research that has not been done because it really isn't needed 
any more, for those working on making the effect more reliable. 
"Reliable" is a practical question and has *nothing* to do with the science.


The most obvious of these would be research to nail down the reported 
heat/helium ratio from the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. It's quite 
well enough established that researchers in the field routinely 
assume that helium is generated from palladium deuteride when heat is 
being generated, but verifying the correlation happens to be a useful 
activity that could serve both skeptics and "believers."


The claim is often made that cold fusion is pathological science, and 
that it's like other pathological science, when measurements are made 
more accurately and carefully, the anomalous results disappear. Okay, 
what happens if the heat/helium ratio is measured more carefully?


(It's a difficult measurement, fairly expensive to do, but it's been 
done by a dozen or so research groups around the world, and not only 
is there no contrary evidence, some of the original negative 
replications that found no heat, also checked for helium, and did not 
find it. That is a *confirmation* of the heat/helium ratio. No heat, 
no helium.)


(Heat/helium is a *reliable experiment*. To measure the ratio 
requires running a series of FP cells and not only doing the standard 
calorimetry on them, looking for anomalous heat, but also capturing 
the helium, which is actually the hard part. Heat is routinely 
measured with accuracy far beyond noise, but helium takes special 
care. Nevertheless, correlation uses the "dead cells" as controls. 
That is why heat/helium actually cuts through the reliability 
problem, because it confirms *both* the heat and helium measurements.


And that the work done so far has approached the deuterium fusion to 
helium value doesn't hurt!


John Huizenga was the co-chair of the 1989 DoE review, and he wrote 
in about 1993, in the second edition of his book on cold fusion about 
the Miles finding of heat/helium correlation that, if confirmed, it 
would solve a major mystery of cold fusion, the ash.


Well? Was Miles confirmed? Storms certainly claims so, and that is a 
reasonable claim, but ... if it's not true, then confirming Miles 
would be long, long overdue. And if it is true, getting a more 
accurate measure could help discriminate between alternate theories 
as to mechanism.


It is time that the DoE follow its own recommendations. They were 
unanimous in 2004. So why is anyone second-guessing them?


*If* your friend, Mr. Bowery, is in doubt about the reality of cold 
fusion, and because of the vast possible implications from the 
reality of cold fusion, and if he now represents private interests, 
funding careful research with this could be crucial as a matter of 
due diligence. This work should be bypassed only by those already 
convinced that cold fusion is real.


Most cold fusion approaches are famously unreliable, and making them 
reliable is probably going to take a lot more research; without 
understanding the mechanism ("fusion" doe

Re: [Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)

2012-12-31 Thread Harry Veeder

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM, ChemE  wrote:
>>
>> Holy crap
>>
>
> Only if it's Shiva's.
>

If I were Hindu should I be offended or just laugh?

harry

Re: [Vo]:OT: Call For Death Of Climate Deniers

At 10:18 AM 12/31/2012, Zell, Chris wrote:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/

This ugly spirit is ruining free inquiry and science in
general. Fortunately, he lacks credibility on the subject.

Before spreading stuff like this, taken from a blog, I suggest
*actually checking it*. The man in question, who was simply exploring
an idea on his own blog, quickly apologised, yesterday.

I found the source by following a link from Joanne Nova's blog at
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/
and from there to his "More" comment about his opposition to the death penalty.

I understand what he was saying.

Without raising the argument, *suppose* that global warming will
happen, and it's caused by us, and it will cause millions of deaths.
Maybe a billion.

If so, the global warming denial, the argument would go, could cause
a billion deaths, and if that's so, the professor suggested that this
would be worthy of the death penalty.

Now, the man is a strong supporter of Amnesty International. He's
*firmly* opposed to the death penalty. I read his thinking as simply
saying that this is a very serious matter.

Backing up, we, as a society need to be able to *think*. The thought
process requires taking up ideas and *holding* them for a time.

Just because an idea, if accepted, could mean that a billion people
would die, does *not* mean that someone should be taken out and shot
because they have the idea and express it!

It's also possible that if a huge amount of effort it put into
avoiding a non-existent hazard, if that's what global warming is,
resources would be wasted that could save a billion lives, eventually.

To make genuine choices, we need to be able to think regardless of
"political correctness" -- or any sort of fixed assumptions. We need
our full collective intelligence. That requires freedom of thought
and, generally, expression.

In all directions.

But *action* is another thing. Action to harm our ability to think
clearly, collectively, would be *oppressive*, and that is where
serious response could become appropriate. We have, for very good
reason, developed strong traditions of intellectual freedom, and we
need to guard against a constant tendency to repress minority opinion.

My sense is that minority opinion is *usually* wrong, but the
exceptions can be doozies! We need minority opinion, it will keep the
majority on its toes, and ... sometimes the minority is actually right.

From the professor's web site,
http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange_apology.html

Global warming

I wish to apologize publicly to all those who were offended by texts
that were previously posted at this address. I made claims that were
incorrect and comparisons that were completely inappropriate, which
I deeply regret. I alone am entirely responsible for the content of
those texts, which I hereby withdraw in their entirety. I would also
like to thank all those who took the time and trouble to share their
thoughts in emails.

In October 2012, I wrote the following on this page: "I have always
been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always
supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on
this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is
often applied by mistake." I wish to confirm that this is indeed my
opinion. More generally, all human beings in all places and at all
times have equal rights. I have been a member and financial
supporter of Amnesty International for at least 18 years, and I
admire and support their universal, altruistic approach to defending
human rights.

The following extract from the text was intended to apply to the
entire text: "Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the
threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical
argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking
aloud about an important problem."

Richard Parncutt, 27-30 December 2012

Re: [Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)

2012-12-31 Thread Terry Blanton

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM, ChemE  wrote:

> Holy crap
>
>
Only if it's Shiva's.

Re: [Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)

2012-12-31 Thread ChemE

Holy crap

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 31, 2012, at 6:07 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:04 PM,  wrote:
>  
>> Welcome to dirt bag america.  I wonder what it is like in other parts of the 
>> world. 
> 
> http://zeenews.india.com/blog/india-s-open-toilet-crisis_322.html
> 
>

Re: [Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)

2012-12-31 Thread Terry Blanton

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:04 PM,  wrote:


>  Welcome to dirt bag america.  I wonder what it is like in other parts of
> the world.
>

http://zeenews.india.com/blog/india-s-open-toilet-crisis_322.html

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

Below, Jojo promised to allow me "the last word." This is it. It 
really doesn't matter, though, because I'm done. anyway I already 
shut down response in other threads. There are issues raised in these 
exchanges that can be of value, but they are also basically off-topic.


The relevance I could assert is that they reveal a certain type of 
thinking that is not all that uncommon, it is merely extremely 
visible with Jojo. Jojo is demonstrating a hazard that we are all 
subject to. To avoid it requires care and a willingness to self-examine.


At 03:46 AM 12/31/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
OK , Lomax, you are an expert in deception and twist and spin.  I 
bow to your skill and go away.


All Jojo would have to do is acknowledge errors or misinterpretations 
on his part. My "skill" is only hard work. It takes time to research 
the issues raised. It takes time to write something coherent.


And, yes, it takes time, though much less time, to read what's found. 
What trolls do, mostly, is waste time. Is Jojo a troll?


A troll is someone who has, as a motive, insulting or enraging 
others. Motive can be difficult to discern, but, observing Jojo since 
his participation in Vortex started to go south, yes, Jojo intends to 
outrage. This is connected, for him, with "responding to insults," 
i.e., to a belief that one must respond "in kind" to insults, and it 
is also connected to "correcting propaganda," except that Jojo has, 
many times, *introduced* highly controversial topics, connected with 
politics and religion, when he either thought he was being insulted, 
or he saw his *beliefs* as being insulted. He introduces them, 
obviously, because he wants to "insult back" someone, so he picks a 
topic that he thinks will outrage them. And he's not precise, the 
topic is a shotgun blast, with massive collateral damage. That the 
damage *usually* does not appear is only because the readership of 
Vortex is relatively small, and most people just shrug stuff off.


He knew and expected that his use of Vortex to promote his beliefs 
(or "correct the beliefs of others") would be disruptive. He referred 
to it many times. But he took nearly every excuse to do it.


I documented how this behavior first showed, previously, 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74768.html


The entire list can document this time that I am letting Lomax have 
the last word.  I will no longer post unless asked a specific 
question or insulted whether directly or in reference.



Please let this escalating round of insults end.  I'm tired.


The exchange will end as he says, if he keeps his word. It's not 
merely a "round of insults." That's what *Jojo* does.


Above, I describe what a troll is, and I provide some level of 
argument that could lead to a conclusion of trolling *in effect*. Is 
that an insult? Jojo has consistently claimed that his comments about 
Obama and supporters, about Muhammad and his wife Ayesha, about what 
a billion people worship as God, calling Allah a "Moon god," about 
people who are concerned about global warming, about Christians other 
than a narrow group, about people who accept the evolution of 
species, and about many participants on this list, are "just the 
truth," and therefore not insults.


I research topics that come up, and report the results. I don't 
research irrelevant topics and then dump the results here. On 
list-irrelevant topics, I don't start discussions here as new 
threads, other than in error or to pull an irrelevant topic out of a 
thread where it's disruptive. I have, many times, asked for errors to 
be corrected. In the absence of that correction, and where what I've 
said isn't obviously mere opinion, where it was based on cited 
evidence, I must assume that what I've written is either true or at 
least reasonable.


Yet Jojo has, many times, called it "lies." It's fairly clear that 
his reading comprehension is poor, he doesn't understand what sources 
mean. He's mistaken comment that is not about him at all, as being 
about him, a clear example came up yesterday with Axil. He calls my 
posts "lies" because he does not like what conclusions may be drawn 
from them, and he assumes conclusions and states them as if they are 
what I've said. Frequently.


But my posts are just a collection of facts and thought. Facts are 
not lies, they are just what's so. If a source conveys an untruth, 
and the source is cited as saying what is untrue, it is not a lie to 
state what is in the source, if it's attributed, because *it's in the source.*


Science begins with this kind of detachment from opinion and 
judgment. I do not always distinguish my "thoughts" as such; but my 
thoughts are only my reactions. If reported as my reactions, they 
are, again, not lies. They are just my reactions, and, again, that's 
just what's so. My reactions and thoughts are not "truth," nor are 
they "lies." They are just reactions.


This is so for everyone who is not God.

It's easy for anyone with the trai

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-31 Thread Harry Veeder

Sorry I am confused.
What is considered false here?

A nine year old is barely out diapers

or

that muslims do not disapprove of sexual relations with a nine year old?



Harry


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM, de Bivort Lawrence
 wrote:
> That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true.
>
> I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as they 
> pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to the 
> pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the practices that 
> many people today criticize.
>
> But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would 
> respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than 
> assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown in 
> the posting to be flat-out incorrect.
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>>  wrote:
>>> At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>>
 Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same
 corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old
 little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it.
 No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.
>>>
>>>
>>> BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. What is
>>> obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and over.
>>> Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued to
>>> emphasize it.
>>
>>
>> Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
>>
>> Harry
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

Thanks Ruby; A great video from Ruby Carat.

Russ used air in on demo and got poor results. Hydrogen was better and
helium was the best.

Heinz Klostermann uses air because his cannon system cannot be made gas
tight.

A linier motor can be made completely gas tight; as tight as a compressed
gas tank.
The lack of a pop when the projectile leaves the tube tells me that the
system does not use gas pressure to apply energy to the projectile.

I believe that a plasmoid hitting the face of the projectile is the means
of energy transfer between the spark and the projectile.

Cheers:Axil

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ruby  wrote:

>
>
>
> video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE
>
>
> post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall
> Plan to support this"
>
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/
>
>
> --
> Ruby Carat
> r...@coldfusionnow.org
> Skype ruby-carat
> www.coldfusionnow.org
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

2012-12-31 Thread Jed Rothwell

David Roberson  wrote:

Jed, you are describing a gentleman that has supreme confidence in his
> knowledge of physics and believes that there can be nothing new under the
> sun.

That is why they put him in charge of the ERAB panel. The DoE is run by
people like him.

They are pretty good at incremental improvements to existing technology,
but useless for anything else. That is why the plasma fusion project has
gone on for 60 years without making any progress. We are no closer to
plasma fusion power reactors than we were in 1950.

> Gibbs on the other hand should not be blamed too severely.
>

It is probably not his fault. He does not understand the difference between
a claim and a theory. He does not understand what EPRI meant, or why
Gerischer was so sure cold fusion is real. I expect he has talked to
theoretical physicists and they have told him "we will not believe this
until we see a nuclear theory that we agree is true." They have said that
to me countless times. Needless to say, that is a violation of the
scientific method, but these people never learned the scientific method.

 In his case, it would be a major embarrassment to his career if he went
> out on a limb and declared LENR as real and later was found to be in error.
>

I think he should report the facts about cold fusion and leave it at that.
But he would get in trouble for doing that.

> Do you think that the investment world is frozen in a similar manner when
> new technologies emerge?
>

Only with regard to energy, and only because the DoE has tremendous
influence. It has stifled research in the U.S., Japan and Europe.

There is no Federal Department of Computing. If there was one, we would
still be using vacuum tube computers. Uncle Sam did invent the Internet,
but that was an incremental improvement using existing technology, which is
the kind of thing Federal researchers excel at doing.

NASA's mismanagement of the Hubble went to surrealistic extremes. Read the
book "Hubble Wars" for details. All because of academic politics.

>  Who is willing to be the first brave guy to take that step into the
> unknown and risk being labeled stupid?
>

Stupid is the least they will call you. Any scientist or science journalist
who gets involved with cold fusion will be called "the chicken nugget and
fries guy" at McDonald's. It is career suicide to talk about cold fusion.
You are allowed to write the kind of slop Gibbs, Lemonick, Sci. Am. and
others have published: 5 parts rumor, 5 parts technical error, 1 part fact.

- Jed

[Vo]:Why use water vapor and chlorine in the Papp gas mix?

Why use water vapor and chlorine in the Papp gas mix? It may all come down
to negative ion formation.

The process of plasmoid formation starts out during the formation of the
spark discharge. In turn, spark discharge starts with corona formation.

A corona is a process by which a current flows from an electrode with a
high potential into a neutral fluid, usually air, by ionizing that fluid so
as to create a region of plasma around the electrode. The ions generated
eventually pass charge to nearby areas of lower potential, or recombine to
form neutral gas molecules.

In the case of the Papp reaction, the corona is negative because Papp uses
electronegative gases in his gas envelope. Papp also uses sharply pointed
electrodes. Ideally, to produce a negative corona, the cathode should be
sharply pointed and the anode should be blunt.

A negative corona is a non-uniform corona, varying according to the
topology of the curved conductor. It often starts out on the sharpest edge
of the cathode, the sharpness of the cathode determines the strength of the
ionizing field.

The form of negative coronas is a result of its source of secondary
avalanche electrons (see below). It appears a little larger than the
corresponding positive corona, as electrons drift out of the ionizing
region, and so the plasma continues some distance beyond it. The total
number of electrons, and electron density is much greater than in the
corresponding positive corona.

However, they are of a predominantly lower energy, owing to being in a
region of lower potential-gradient. The increased electron density will
increase the reaction rate, the lower energy of the electrons will mean
that reactions which require a higher electron energy may take place at a
lower rate.

A further feature of the structure of negative coronas is that as the
electrons drift outwards, they encounter neutral molecules and, with
electronegative molecules (such as oxygen and water vapor), combine to
produce negative ions. These negative ions are then attracted to the
positive uncurbed electrode, completing the 'circuit'.

A negative corona can be divided into three radial areas, around the sharp
electrode. In the inner area, high-energy electrons inelastically collide
with neutral atoms and cause avalanches, while outer electrons (usually of
a lower energy) combine with neutral atoms to produce negative ions

The Papp gases are all highly electronegative. Electronegative molecules
(such as oxygen(3.44) and water vapor, hydrogen(2.20),
Kripton(3.00),Xenon(2.60), Fluorine (3.98), and Cloriene(3.16)) will add in
the formation of the spark discharge.

See

Electro negativity of the elements in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity

On the most basic level, electronegativity is determined by factors like
the nuclear charge (the more protons an atom has, the more "pull" it will
have on negative electrons) and the number/location of other electrons
present in the atomic shells (the more electrons an atom has, the farther
from the nucleus the valence electrons will be, and as a result the less
positive charge they will experience—both because of their increased
distance from the nucleus, and because the other electrons in the lower
energy core orbitals will act to shield the valence electrons from the
positively charged nucleus).

The opposite of electronegativity is electropositivity: a measure of an
element's ability to donate electrons.

As the spark formation process begins, the electric potential difference
increases sharply between the electrodes, the electronegative gas molecules
will be drawn to the cathode and repelled from the anode.

In a negative corona that forms just before the spark discharged is
triggered, the electrons drift outwards from the sharply pointed cathode
toward the anode; these electrons encounter a dense concentration of
neutral electronegative gas molecules and, with electronegative molecules,
combine to produce negative ions.

In other words, these positively charge molecules will gorge themselves on
electrons and become negative ions. As the spark formation process
advances, these negative ions are then attracted to the positive uncurbed
anode, completing the ‘plasma circuit'.

This negative corona is divided into three radial areas, around the sharp
electrode. In the inner area, high-energy electrons inelastically collide
with electronegative neutral atoms and cause electron avalanches, while
outer electrons (usually of a lower energy) combine with neutral atoms to
produce negative ions. In the intermediate region, electrons combine to
form negative ions, but typically have insufficient energy to cause
avalanche ionization.

Papp could have used water vapor and chlorine as a way to ionize the spark
gap during pre-spark discharge preparation.

Because many of these electronegative elements are corrosive, he may have
decided that his cylinder would last longer if he confined his design to
noble gases.

However, a non-corrosive cylinde

Re: [Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)

2012-12-31 Thread John Berry

Consider though that inspiration is very vital to uplifting humanity.
Nothing is more inspirational in my books than reaching literally for the
stars.

A bigger picture might be just what they are lacking.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM,  wrote:

> I dropped off my mother at a local grocery store in Western Pa,   I made
> these observations within the next 40 minutes.
>
>  A man going into the store spat on the ground near the entrance.
>
>  Another man came out of the store and spat a wad of snuff in the same
> local.
>
>  A small child coming into the store ran through this excrement.
>
>  Two men coming in.  One was drunk with a cup, probably alcohol, the
> other drank down the first parties cup before going into the store.  He
> did, however  throw the cup in a thrash receptacle.
>
>  A young woman coming in threw her lit cigarette butt on the ground near
> the entrance.  The butt sat there smoking.
>
>  Man in the parking lot spat in front of my car.
>
>  A man came in and parked right in front of the entrance and blocked it.
>  There were plenty of empty spots in the parking lot.
>
>  Welcome to dirt bag america.  I wonder what it is like in other parts of
> the world.
>
>   Frank Z
>

Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airplane- LENR

2012-12-31 Thread Jed Rothwell

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

>
> Indeed, lenr is no good for airplanes due to low power density and extreme
> cost of onboard power generators.
>

I do not think so. Cold fusion power density has sometimes been as high as
a fission reactor core, which is high enough for an aircraft engine.

Fission reactor airplane engines were developed in the 1950s. See chapter
18 of my book, and also:

http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htm

Furthermore, you can make the cold fusion engine heavy and large, because
the mass of fuel is so small.

All plans for fission/LENR planes rely on assumption that the price of Jet
> fuel would increase, but this is silly assumption! Fuel/energy usually gets
> cheaper over time if we are looking longer trends.
>

Cold fusion will be orders of magnitude cheaper than jet fuel.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

2012-12-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

right, we shoul look as strange with our bonapartist constitution,
aggravated by recent synchronization/subordinationof
presidential/parliamentarian calendar...

moreover we think cenbtralised, non-localized, not federal...

about constitution, some more expert than me said me that it was made by
liberal traders to avoid the centralization of power in the government...
moreover each state want to keep power... lobbies too...

frenc recent 5th republic was made in troubled-time by a military honest
man, who wanted a governable system, where a clear majority is obtained and
can do what it decide. He clearly underestimated the lack of honesty of
some leaders...
no risk of abuse, at worst french wont obey if they don't agree... and ther
will be a coup-d'etat or revolution...

germany unmodifiable constitution is so funny for us... as if a
constitutional law could not be broken by a majority... ah ah ah... just
check that the people agree!

2012/12/31 Eric Walker 

> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:10 AM, de Bivort Lawrence 
> wrote:
>
>  Most Americans do *not* fear our government.
>>
>
> I think Alain has in mind the system of checks and balances in US
> government -- the veto of the President, the Supreme Court striking down
> legislation, etc.  By and large, US government is quite decentralized,
> especially in comparison to the French government.  This has the effect of
> raising barriers to one group's making drastic changes for which there is
> no consensus (see the recent constitution story in Egypt) at the cost of
> making it difficult to get things done when agreement can't be found.  Many
> countries do not have governments that are as easily paralyzed as that of
> the US.  Advocates for this kind of governmental decentralization are
> worried about "tyranny."
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:off topic (do we really want to sent these people to the stars?)

2012-12-31 Thread fznidarsic

I dropped off my mother at a local grocery store in Western Pa,   I made these 
observations within the next 40 minutes.


A man going into the store spat on the ground near the entrance.


Another man came out of the store and spat a wad of snuff in the same local.


A small child coming into the store ran through this excrement.


Two men coming in.  One was drunk with a cup, probably alcohol, the other drank 
down the first parties cup before going into the store.  He did, however  throw 
the cup in a thrash receptacle.


A young woman coming in threw her lit cigarette butt on the ground near the 
entrance.  The butt sat there smoking.


Man in the parking lot spat in front of my car.


A man came in and parked right in front of the entrance and blocked it.  There 
were plenty of empty spots in the parking lot.


Welcome to dirt bag america.  I wonder what it is like in other parts of the 
world. 


 Frank Z

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

Sounds like that would work Eric.  My bet is on less than unity gain.  I feel 
like the guy Jed has been discussing at this point.  I hope that my mind 
remains open to a greater extent.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water


On Dec 31, 2012, at 11:55, David Roberson  wrote:



I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting.  Does the piston return to 
its beginning point with each cycle?  If so, at least a complete loop is 
covered which is the requirement.



The piston would return to its original position many times; in the case of the 
lone popper, it would be upright, so that gravity pulls the piston down.


 



We would be looking for an average over many cycles rather than attempt to 
extrapolate from a single cycle.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

You have a good explanation for the lack of visible reaction away from the 
projectile.  The law of conservation of momentum ensures that the initial 
movement of the barrel must be in the opposite direction.  The amount of 
movement might be small if the barrel kinetic energy is absorbed by a barrier 
that is stiff, and that must be what we have.  Energy can then be returned to 
the barrel from the barrier by spring action propelling it in the same 
direction as the piston.


How often do claims of the type revealed within this video arise?   You would 
think that by now we would realize most are nothing but fancy electric motors 
of an unusual design.  I will be very surprised to see one that actually 
delivers over unity performance throughout a complete cycle when the total 
input is accurately determined.


The inventor stated that a significant amount of energy still remained within 
the capacitor bank after a power pulse.  Since energy stored within a capacitor 
is proportional to the square of the voltage I would not be so kind.  
160^2/500^2=.1   Only 10% remains which is not a large proportion.



Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 2:49 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine



Interesting observation…
 
If you watch the white box/cannon assembly (not the cardboard white box 
‘target’), you would think that the recoil would cause it to move backward, in 
the opposite direction as the projectile (piston); in fact, the assembly moves 
in the SAME direction as the projectile.  The only explanation that I can see 
is that the assembly is already placed against an immovable barrier which 
prevents the recoil from moving it to the right, and that force pushes back on 
the assembly moving it in the same direction as the projectile…
 
-Mark
 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

 
8:54 in is a slow motion shot showing the 1lb projectile travelling about 2 
meters in about 3 frames.  He also claims that the effective energy delivered 
to the plasma is about 600J.

sqrt(600J/(2*lbm))?m/s

sqrt((600 * joule) / (2 * poundm)) ? meter / second
= 25.717452 m/s

30frames/sec;3 frames/2m?m/s

([30 * frames] / second) * ([3 * frames] / [2 * meter])^-1 ? meter / second
= 20 m/s

So it appears he has an 80% efficient electric cannon.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Ruby  wrote:




video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE


post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall Plan to 
support this"

http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/



-- 
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

On Dec 31, 2012, at 11:55, David Roberson  wrote:

> I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting.  Does the piston return 
> to its beginning point with each cycle?  If so, at least a complete loop is 
> covered which is the requirement.

The piston would return to its original position many times; in the case of the 
lone popper, it would be upright, so that gravity pulls the piston down.
> 

We would be looking for an average over many cycles rather than attempt to 
extrapolate from a single cycle.

Eric

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

I am not sure I understand what you are suggesting.  Does the piston return to 
its beginning point with each cycle?  If so, at least a complete loop is 
covered which is the requirement.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 2:44 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water


On Dec 31, 2012, at 10:40, David Roberson  wrote:



I was trying to come up with any way that energy could be delivered by the Papp 
while leaving the gas cool.  



It occurs to me now that we may have made a simple problem into a difficult 
one. Our initial challenge is to find out whether the Papp mechanism is 
overunity by an obvious amount; ie, the effect is not a threshold one.


We can start out with a simple popper hooked up to a flywheel like the one seen 
in Puppy Dog's video, where there is an arm that moves the wheel in only one 
direction.  Now attach a chain to the wheel and use it to draw a sled with 
known weight across a surface of known friction with the sled.


Energy in would be the integral over time of the power used to drive the 
system. Energy out would be a function of the distance the sled moved. Heating 
due to friction would be ignored to obtain a pessimistic lower bound.


A two cylinder engine could be used in place of the popper if such an engine is 
available.


Eric

RE: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

2012-12-31 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Interesting observation.

 

If you watch the white box/cannon assembly (not the cardboard white box
'target'), you would think that the recoil would cause it to move backward,
in the opposite direction as the projectile (piston); in fact, the assembly
moves in the SAME direction as the projectile.  The only explanation that I
can see is that the assembly is already placed against an immovable barrier
which prevents the recoil from moving it to the right, and that force pushes
back on the assembly moving it in the same direction as the projectile.

 

-Mark

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

 

8:54 in is a slow motion shot showing the 1lb projectile travelling about 2
meters in about 3 frames.  He also claims that the effective energy
delivered to the plasma is about 600J.

sqrt(600J/(2*lbm))?m/s

sqrt((600 * joule) / (2 * poundm)) ? meter / second
= 25.717452 m/s

30frames/sec;3 frames/2m?m/s

([30 * frames] / second) * ([3 * frames] / [2 * meter])^-1 ? meter / second
= 20 m/s

So it appears he has an 80% efficient electric cannon.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Ruby  wrote:




video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE


post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall Plan
to support this"
 
 
http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-b
e-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/



-- 
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

On Dec 31, 2012, at 10:40, David Roberson  wrote:

> I was trying to come up with any way that energy could be delivered by the 
> Papp while leaving the gas cool.  

It occurs to me now that we may have made a simple problem into a difficult 
one. Our initial challenge is to find out whether the Papp mechanism is 
overunity by an obvious amount; ie, the effect is not a threshold one.

We can start out with a simple popper hooked up to a flywheel like the one seen 
in Puppy Dog's video, where there is an arm that moves the wheel in only one 
direction.  Now attach a chain to the wheel and use it to draw a sled with 
known weight across a surface of known friction with the sled.

Energy in would be the integral over time of the power used to drive the 
system. Energy out would be a function of the distance the sled moved. Heating 
due to friction would be ignored to obtain a pessimistic lower bound.

A two cylinder engine could be used in place of the popper if such an engine is 
available.

Eric

RE: [Vo]: the Papp engine

2012-12-31 Thread Zell, Chris




http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/P4.pdf

Intermolecular energy, dudes.  Could be O2, N2 --- or water vapor.  
Graneau did the math and the test results and got overunity.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

2012-12-31 Thread ChemE Stewart

If you remember one of the Rohners talked about the coil sucking the gas
and ballon in under vacuum.  Sounds entropic and maybe endothermic, at
least at times

On Monday, December 31, 2012, David Roberson wrote:

> Eric, you bring up a concept that has been on my mind this morning.  I was
> trying to come up with any way that energy could be delivered by the Papp
> while leaving the gas cool.  The only idea that remotely made sense was if
> there were two power strokes with the design.  The first one is traditional
> where the excess gas pressure pushes the piston outward.  The second might
> be achieved if the gas then proceeded to suck the piston backwards toward
> the bottom of the cylinder.  If I recall some of the original steam engines
> used suction for their power strokes.
>
>  For this idea to have any chance, there must be a load attached to the
> piston rod that drives a flywheel.  The first push makes the flywheel
> accelerate in one direction.  The suck occurs at a time that also
> contributes to the motion of the flywheel.
>
>  A system of that sort would have two power strokes which has the
> potential to make it powerful due to the number of energy hits per second.
>  We need to do further thinking about the thermodynamics of such a thing as
> I expect that a flaw will become evident soon.  Such as, why would we
> expect the active gas to return to near its original temperature?  If the
> process is totally adiabatic then perhaps that is possible.  This  implies
> that all of the LENR energy is fed to the flywheel and the gas is acting
> like the spring in my earlier analogy.
>
>  It is obviously going to take more thought before I am willing to
> believe that this proposed process is possible.  My gut feeling is that it
> is not going to work.
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Walker  'eric.wal...@gmail.com');>>
> To: vortex-l  'vortex-l@eskimo.com');>>
> Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 12:51 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water
>
>  On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 8:56 AM, David Roberson 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>  I suppose that a large capacitor bank could let loose and so some
>> damage, but in this case I recall that mechanical shrapnel did the damage.
>>  Most likely this was a result of the engine running at too high of a speed.
>
>
>  Yes, when I look again, I see that it's not necessarily liquid, but "a
> cone of silvery uniform stuff" [1], which could be shrapnel.
>
>  If you were to turn the piston on its side during an experiment, so that
> gravity does not play a role, that might control for the problem of stored
> energy being transferred back and forth with kinetic energy.  In this case
> wouldn't work be done by the popper in either direction?
>
>  Eric
>
>
>  http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

2012-12-31 Thread James Bowery

8:54 in is a slow motion shot showing the 1lb projectile travelling about 2
meters in about 3 frames.  He also claims that the effective energy
delivered to the plasma is about 600J.

sqrt(600J/(2*lbm))?m/s

sqrt((600 * joule) / (2 * poundm)) ? meter / second
= 25.717452 m/s

30frames/sec;3 frames/2m?m/s

([30 * frames] / second) * ([3 * frames] / [2 * meter])^-1 ? meter / second
= 20 m/s

So it appears he has an 80% efficient electric cannon.

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Ruby  wrote:

>
>
>
> video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE
>
>
> post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall
> Plan to support this"
>
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/
>
>
> --
> Ruby Carat
> r...@coldfusionnow.org
> Skype ruby-carat
> www.coldfusionnow.org
>
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

Eric, you bring up a concept that has been on my mind this morning.  I was 
trying to come up with any way that energy could be delivered by the Papp while 
leaving the gas cool.  The only idea that remotely made sense was if there were 
two power strokes with the design.  The first one is traditional where the 
excess gas pressure pushes the piston outward.  The second might be achieved if 
the gas then proceeded to suck the piston backwards toward the bottom of the 
cylinder.  If I recall some of the original steam engines used suction for 
their power strokes.


For this idea to have any chance, there must be a load attached to the piston 
rod that drives a flywheel.  The first push makes the flywheel accelerate in 
one direction.  The suck occurs at a time that also contributes to the motion 
of the flywheel.


A system of that sort would have two power strokes which has the potential to 
make it powerful due to the number of energy hits per second.  We need to do 
further thinking about the thermodynamics of such a thing as I expect that a 
flaw will become evident soon.  Such as, why would we expect the active gas to 
return to near its original temperature?  If the process is totally adiabatic 
then perhaps that is possible.  This  implies that all of the LENR energy is 
fed to the flywheel and the gas is acting like the spring in my earlier analogy.


It is obviously going to take more thought before I am willing to believe that 
this proposed process is possible.  My gut feeling is that it is not going to 
work.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 8:56 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


I suppose that a large capacitor bank could let loose and so some damage, but 
in this case I recall that mechanical shrapnel did the damage.  Most likely 
this was a result of the engine running at too high of a speed.



Yes, when I look again, I see that it's not necessarily liquid, but "a cone of 
silvery uniform stuff" [1], which could be shrapnel.


If you were to turn the piston on its side during an experiment, so that 
gravity does not play a role, that might control for the problem of stored 
energy being transferred back and forth with kinetic energy.  In this case 
wouldn't work be done by the popper in either direction?


Eric




http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:10 AM, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:

Most Americans do *not* fear our government.
>

I think Alain has in mind the system of checks and balances in US
government -- the veto of the President, the Supreme Court striking down
legislation, etc.  By and large, US government is quite decentralized,
especially in comparison to the French government.  This has the effect of
raising barriers to one group's making drastic changes for which there is
no consensus (see the recent constitution story in Egypt) at the cost of
making it difficult to get things done when agreement can't be found.  Many
countries do not have governments that are as easily paralyzed as that of
the US.  Advocates for this kind of governmental decentralization are
worried about "tyranny."

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airplane- LENR

2012-12-31 Thread Jouni Valkonen

Indeed, lenr is no good for airplanes due to low power density and extreme cost 
of onboard power generators. Same argument goes also for fission powered 
airplanes, because high cost of fission reactor cannot compensate extremely 
cheap jet fuel. All plans for fission/LENR planes rely on assumption that the 
price of Jet fuel would increase, but this is silly assumption! Fuel/energy 
usually gets cheaper over time if we are looking longer trends.

As Earth is globular, there is no need for longer flight distances than ca. 20 
000 km. Therefore it is very practical to produce hydrogen using LENR or solar 
energy and then use hydrogen as hypersonic jet fuel. Artificial photosynthesis 
may produce cheap hydrogen for airplanes decades before LENR is practical.

However, I think that while we are waiting for cheap hydrogen, there might be a 
niche for hypersonic electric jets. Right now energy density of batteries must 
be doubled in order to electric jet engines to be economically practical. As 
cost performance of batteries gets better ca. 7-10 % annually, and there are 
promising prototypes that might suggest doubling the energy density of lithium 
batteries, I would estimate that first electric jet will fly commercially in 
early 2020's. 

Main benefit with electric jets is low maintenance costs compared to jet fuel 
driven turbofan jet engines and ability to go supersonic cheaply. Turbofan 
engines cannot operate supersonic and conventional jet engines are as expensive 
as Concorde and afterburners are not practical. Biggest drawback is low energy 
density of lithium batteries and hence range is limited to few thousand 
kilometers. 

There is just no physically possible better aviation technologies than hydrogen 
+ SABRE engine. This provides ca. mach 5.5 cruising speed at 30 km, what is 
good enough for near term aviation. Later in 2030's we might try to develop 
suborbital airplanes but this technology is of course speculative.

—Jouni

Ps. Happy new year!

Top topic for 2013 is the revolution in transportation: new generation of 
aviation technology and breakthrough of electric cars. Tesla Model S was the 
first real electric car. Also solar electricity will be big hit of the year. 
There will be onset investments for large scale solar electricity production. 
By 2020 solar electricity is the primary energy source in sunny areas such as 
in Australia, Greece and Arizona.

On 30.12.2012, at 21.18, Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greetings All,
> 
> Boeing is fully aware of LENR Cold Fusion..and yet they talk about batteries:
> http://phys.org/news/2012-12-sugar-volt-boeing-vision-hybrid.html
> 
> My bet is that their electric plane never sees batteries-except for a 
> temporary back-up.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Ron Kita, Chiralex

RE: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

2012-12-31 Thread Zell, Chris

The fact that many or most Americans do not fear the government is not 
something to celebrate.  The erosion of rights under the Constitution is 
shocking - if most people understood or cared - and Obama has become worse than 
Bush.

While Congress hotly debates budgets, just hours away from a fiscal cliff, they 
have no trouble at all passing a bill (twice) that allows for indefinite 
imprisonment without trial by a bipartisan majority (NDAA). Don't waste your 
time protesting to your "elected representative", they won't bother answering ( 
my experience).

And they easily pass a bill to search your email without a warrant - take note 
of the fact that no one even bats an eye that the FBI went thru tens of 
thousands of emails from the most prominent military leaders in the country 
recently. Not even their position saves them..

And most astounding of all?  Take a good look at the track record of people 
crying for gun confiscation and note how disgusted and aggrieved they normally 
are in preaching that the government is corrupt and unresponsive.  Like Michael 
Moore and his 9/11 work.  The government is evil but let's give up our guns? 
Really?

Oh, and the US now puts a higher % of its people in prison than Russia does.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 8:56 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

I suppose that a large capacitor bank could let loose and so some damage,
> but in this case I recall that mechanical shrapnel did the damage.  Most
> likely this was a result of the engine running at too high of a speed.

Yes, when I look again, I see that it's not necessarily liquid, but "a cone
of silvery uniform stuff" [1], which could be shrapnel.

If you were to turn the piston on its side during an experiment, so that
gravity does not play a role, that might control for the problem of stored
energy being transferred back and forth with kinetic energy.  In this case
wouldn't work be done by the popper in either direction?

Eric

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html

RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

2012-12-31 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From ashfield:

 

>> "However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing

>> evidence to be independently validated."

 

> Actually he has. The third party verification of the Hot Cat was completed

> a couple of weeks ago and Rossi expects the results (which he has not
seen)

> to be published early in February.

 

I hope so, but that remains to be seen. Typically in the past when Ross let
the "cat" out of the bag. what Rossi promises versus what Rossi eventually
delivers seems to end up being less convincing, particularly for those who
are looking for independently verifiable proof.

 

> Likewise, Rossi claims his first 1 MW Hot Cat will be finished in February

> and the working unit made available for inspection a couple of months
after

> it has been set up.  Considering the short time since the original E-Cat
this

> would be remarkably fast if he does it.  

 

Indeed, in the greater scheme of things I would consider it "remarkably
fast." However, it also accurate to say that these are all future claims. It
seems to me that Rossi is often fond of making claims like this. It can be
difficult taking many of his claims seriously. I'll I can do is hope for the
best. I'm reminded of something president Reagan famously said: "Trust, but
verify."

 

> The original 1 MW E-Cat is supposed to be sold to a customer for March
delivery and

> may also be made available for inspection.  Rossi claims that the units
delivered

> to the military were different. 

 

"Rossi claims..." "Rossi claims..." At present I'm far more interested in
what others "claim" - particularly from those who have had first-hand
knowledge of Rossi's alleged claims. Unfortunately, few seem to want to step
up to the podium.

> In my previous post I left out that Rossi states he has provided his new
partner

> with his IP so there is no possibility of it going to the grave with him.


 

I certainly hope so.

 

> With so much in the pipe-line either we get solid news soon or it will
look

> very suspicious.

 

My point exactly. Hope for the best. But prepare for the worst.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine

2012-12-31 Thread Ruby





video: PULSER Plasma Engine Core: Recovering the Papp engine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSAXbZfnbE


post: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine: "There should be a Marshall 
Plan to support this"


http://coldfusionnow.org/heinz-klostermann-on-the-papp-engine-there-should-be-a-marshall-plan-to-support-this/


--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org 
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

Salut, Alain.

Bonne nouvelle année.

Most Americans do not fear our government. A few do, and are viewed by the rest 
of Americans as paranoid and living in an alternative Tea-party reality.  That 
reality is so bizarre, and the people who advocate it as so bizarre that they 
do get a lot of publicity and attention. They do have a political impact, 
especially on the Republican party, where some republican leaders want to rid 
themselves of the Tea-Party members knowing that association with them will 
reduce the Republican party to fringe status, and other republican leaders want 
to embrace the Tea-Party knowing that it may be the last stronghold of the 
republican party. It is a fascinating trap and I am curious to see how the 
Republicans (who include some pretty decent and smart people) will work this 
out.

Like people everywhere, most Americans want lower taxes and more government 
services. They want the government to stop telling them what to do with laws 
and regulations, but they at the same time want the government to stop others 
from doing things they disapprove of. As I said, like people everywhere.

For myself, I appreciate our government greatly. By and large, it is efficient, 
economic, responsive, and transparent. Of course, there are many things the 
government does that I disagree with (especially in foreign affairs), but 
generally I appreciate and support our government. Generally!

Laurent


On Dec 31, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

> my wife know that school.
> it is a Jakarta dowtown secular state school... 
> the country is muslim, yet there is 6 religion allowed, yet mandatory (you 
> have to believe in one single god, with a paradise... that is the rule... 
> whichever it is is your choice, even if like US there are political group 
> using religion to reach power, and some increasing discrimination against 
> minorities, nationally or locally)
> 
> until recently when liberalisation inspired by humanrightists develop, the 
> hijab (woman head scarf, which is much more sexy in indonesia than in saudi 
> arabia) was forbidden in state school...
> 
> and whatever you can say, it is clear Obama speak more like an evangelist 
> priest...
> A bit shocking for a secular French, but if american love that style, it is 
> their own freedom...
> Our choices since 10 years are criticized by more than 50% of the population, 
> so we cannot give lessons... ah ah ;-)
> 
> note also that what is evident from France is that US president is very weak 
> because of the constitution, by design ... parliament rules and is 
> republican... 
> 
> It is clear that US fear their government...
> 
> whether it is good or not is not to be discussed... I just remind facts.
> 
> 2012/12/31 Jojo Jaro 
> His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia.  You 
> can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:14 AM
> 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
> 
> 
> On what evidence do you base your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim?
> 
> 
> On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> 
> No, I am not stating that the "President" is a muslim.  I am stating that the 
> Usurper is a muslim.  We currently don't have a legitimate president; we have 
> a usurper sitting on the throne.
> 
> Why doesn't he just come clean?  He could do this with a single 2 minute 
> phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC.  He 
> can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill  the Birther 
> movement and start the healing of the nation.  He can do all that in 2 
> minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to block 
> access to this vault BC.  Why block access to such an innocuous document?  
> WHY indeed?
> 
> He won't because he can't.  This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped up 
> by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
> 
> 
> Are you stating that the President is Muslim?
> 
> 
> On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> 
> Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related 
> to previous and current presidents.  Anything about this current president is 
> covered by this order.  IF anyone wants to release information about Obama's 
> BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) or thru the 
> Presidential counsel;  for approval. This is the veil of corruption 
> surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are gving him a pass. 
>  I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it helps prop up his 
> illegitimate usurper muslim president.
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - Fro

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Thanks, Jojo, I appreciate your response to my query.

It seems to me that you have faith that Genesis is literally accurate. How did 
you find your way to this faith? Was it difficult? Easy?  How unshakeable is 
your faith?

Again,thank you for your response.


On Dec 30, 2012, at 11:09 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

> OK, since you asked, do not call me a troll by answering this.
> 
> 
> Genesis chapter 6 is the source of this.  This passage is the reason why God 
> destroyed the Earth with the flood.
> 
> 6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, 
> and daughters were born unto them,
> 
> 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they 
> took them wives of all which they chose.
> 
> 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he 
> also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
> 
> 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the 
> sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to 
> them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
> 
> 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that 
> every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
> 
> 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved 
> him at his heart.
> 
> 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of 
> the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the 
> air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
> 
> 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hebrew word translated as Giants is Nephilim.
> 
> The Hebrew words for Sons of God literally means "sons of Elohim".  In the 
> Old Testament, only direct creations of God are referred to as Sons of God. 
> Only Adam, Eve and Angels are direct creations of God;  but Eve is not a son, 
> so that leaves Adam and Angels.  So, clearly this passage refers to fallen 
> angels mating with human females producing giants and mighty men of renown.  
> Men of renown means these men are known by the various histories of the 
> region.
> 
> Throughout history and in every culture - Romans, Greeks, Assyrian, 
> Babylonian, Persian, Sumerian, etc, there is mythology relating to gods 
> mating with human women producing extraordinary hybrids.  The Sumerians have 
> their Annunaki.  The Greeks with their pantheon of gods which the Romans 
> adopted wholesale more or less.  In these mythology, there is Hercules, half 
> god half man with great size and strength.  There is Perseus, half god son of 
> Zeus.  There is Atlas, half god, big and strong depicted as carrying the 
> Earth on his back.  These are the men that are renown.
> 
> Google the video "Return of the Nephilim" by Chuck Missler.  Chuck used be in 
> the Defense Industry.  He was an insider.  In his videos, he tries to 
> document the link between Nephilims and modern UFOs.  Watch it and judge for 
> yourself.
> 
> Of course, there are also other videos when you google "UFOs", "Nephilim", 
> "Annunaki", "NWO", "illuminati", etc.  Some good some crazy.  Judge for 
> yourself.
> 
> There are books about this subject.  I do not play video games so I do not 
> know if there are.  I'm pretty this is as this is a common theme the 
> illuminati wants to desensitize people on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
> 
> 
> Thanks. This is fascinating.
> 
> What are the sources for this information? "There is reason to believe that 
> fallen angels are trying to breed with humans to create a hybrid race.  The 
> Bible called these hybrids Nephilims. They were universal during the days of 
> Noah. They interbred with human women to give birth to giant hybrids - 
> Hercules, Persues, Atlas etc.  They interbreed with normal animal to give 
> birth to hideous dinasaurs and loathsome creatures."
> 
> What are the sources for this information, and for the rest of your 
> statements in this email?  Books?
> 
> Are there any movies or video games that depict these themes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 27, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> 
>> OK, since you asked.  Don't say I am trolling.
>> 
>> 
>> There is reason to believe that fallen angels are trying to breed with 
>> humans to create a hybrid race.  The Bible called these hybrids Nephilims. 
>> They were universal during the days of Noah. They interbred with human women 
>> to give birth to giant hybrids - Hercules, Persues, Atlas etc.  They 
>> interbreed with normal animal to give birth to hideous dinasaurs and 
>> loathsome creatures.  This was the primary reason why God had to wipe out 
>> the entire race of life on Earth with a global flood.  Fallen angels and 
>> demons wanted to subve

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

Jed, you are describing a gentleman that has supreme confidence in his 
knowledge of physics and believes that there can be nothing new under the sun.  
I consider this the height of ignorance that many attain in their lives to 
their detriment.  Thanks God that he was not in charge of just about every 
other endeavor that has advanced knowledge.  Where would electronics be had 
someone with that outlook held the purse strings?

In my experience, people with the attitude that you are suggesting are not 
capable of understanding new concepts since they waste most of their effort 
hiding their ignorance from the people around them.  They dare not ask 
questions which might show weakness and they run from any challenge to their 
beliefs.  What a waste of good organic material.

Gibbs on the other hand should not be blamed too severely.  In his case, it 
would be a major embarrassment to his career if he went out on a limb and 
declared LENR as real and later was found to be in error.  He will most likely 
not change his position until a product is accessible and/or the main 
physicists acknowledge it is proven.  He is acting in his best interest in this 
way although some of us may think it is shallow.  Do you think that the 
investment world is frozen in a similar manner when new technologies emerge?  
Who is willing to be the first brave guy to take that step into the unknown and 
risk being labeled stupid?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 11:25 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that?

Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many 
Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004 DoE panel, 
and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view.

That does not mean that Gibbs holds it!

Look, he said right here, in this forum, that he wants to see a "testable 
theory." He said that again, and again, and again. I pointed to the testable 
claim made by EPRI. A claim, not a theory. I pointed out that to an 
experimentalist, confirming that claim is as good as confirming a nuclear 
theory.

Gibbs did not respond. I assume he is saying the same thing as I have heard 
from ten-thousand theorists since 1989: "We will not believe this until you 
show us a complete nuclear theory that we agree with." I assume he is parroting 
that point of view. Okay, so ahead and ask Gibbs what he meant. If I am wrong, 
he can say so. 

Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands a 
"testable theory."

Had he "demanded a testable theory" you'd be right.

It is right here!!! Here is an example:

Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
> Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable
> theory?

Maybe. The DoE may easily be in bed with the hot fusion projects, it was in 
1989. So? Huizenga's book is *still* embarrassing, and is more and more visible 
that way.

In recent years, Chu and many others have cited Huizenga and his book as proof 
that cold fusion does not exist. Most mainstream physicists agree with Huizenga 
completely, that cold fusion violates theory and it cannot possibly exist, and 
that all reported results are mistakes or fraud. I have heard that from 
HUNDREDS of leading scientists such as Chu. I am certain that is what they 
believe. I am also certain they have not read any papers on this subject. That 
is what they tell me.

You may think the book is embarrassing. I think it is a hatchet job. However, 
Chu and others think it is the truth.

But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it.

He wrote most of the book while conducting the ERAB panel investigation. It was 
published soon after ERAB was published. He was still at the peak of his 
intellectual power, and political power. He repeated the statements in the book 
many times, in person, and in letter to me and to others.

What you saw with the Amoco situation would be how he responded when he 
couldn't understand what was happening. He'd flee.

He understood perfectly what was happening. I am sure he did not think the 
results were real. I am pretty sure he thought: "Another damn fake result! More 
nonsense to contend with!" He did not say that. He refused to talk to the 
authors. But that is what other leading skeptics said, and I am sure he agreed.

As for his statements about Miles in his book, he was posturing to make himself 
seem open minded. He never took those results seriously, or any of the similar 
helium results from Italy. He knew about those results, because he attended 
ICCF conferences. I think that was before the second edition of the book. He 
might have written about them or spoken about them any time. For that matter, 
he might have described the tritium from Bockris or Storms, or the excess heat

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

The earlier posting on "muslim" schools is confused.

Some "Muslim" schools have a curriculum that is based solely on the Qur'an. 
This kind of school would only attract non-Muslim students interested in the 
Qur'an, or in the culture of Islam.

Some "Muslim" schools have a standard secular curriculum, and are attended 
mostly by Muslims, thus confusing some into calling them "Muslim" schools.

Some "Muslim" schools are merely called such because they operate in a Muslim 
country, like Indonesia. This is like calling US public schools "Christian" 
because they operate in a predominantly Christian country.

To suggest that President Obama must be a Muslim because he went to a "Muslim" 
school in Indonesia is a statement that at best is meaningless.

On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

> Indeed.   There is a Catholic school in Birmingham, UK, where the majority of 
> pupils are Muslim
> 
> http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birminghams-catholic-school-where-90-of-the-pupils-231115
> 
> Nigel
> 
> On 31/12/2012 04:40, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>> Yes, "Christian" catholic schools are more tolerant of other faiths, but not 
>> muslims.  You can not go to a muslim school like the one Obama went to 
>> unless you are a muslim.
>> 
>> Before Lomax spins this again; may I simply ask readers to research this on 
>> their own to see which of us both is lying.
>> 
>> 
>> Jojo
>> 
>

Re: [Vo]:OT: Call For Death Of Climate Deniers

The guy obviously has a major problem to think this way.  I wonder if he will 
be willing to accept that penalty should it be shown that global warming is 
natural and can be mitigated in the future by relatively simple means?  
Speaking of settled science


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Zell, Chris 
To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' 
Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 10:19 am
Subject: [Vo]:OT: Call For Death Of Climate Deniers


http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/
 
This ugly spirit is ruining free inquiry and science in general.  Fortunately, 
he lacks credibility on the subject.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

I suppose that a large capacitor bank could let loose and so some damage, but 
in this case I recall that mechanical shrapnel did the damage.  Most likely 
this was a result of the engine running at too high of a speed.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 8:57 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water


On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


I am fairly confident that these inventors do not claim that the electrical 
energy recovered due to the returning piston is significant compared to the 
mechanical output.


I haven't followed this detail up to now.  Here I am way out of my depth, but 
consider the following:


* There is probably a high-capacity capacitor bank in most models that is used 
in part to create an electric arc in the gas.
* When Feynman pulled the plug during the demo, the engine was ok for a little 
while, and then Papp got nervous, and then there was an explosion and some 
weird liquid.
* In one of the kits (Bob's? John's?), a coil has been omitted; presumably this 
coil when present will have the effect of recovering some electricity through 
inductance, whatever else it does.


What if in the Feynman incident the capacitor bank was somehow maxed out and 
then released its magic smoke?


Eric

Re: [Vo]:List integrity

That a statement is endlessly repeated does not make it true.

I posted at length on the family practices of the Arabian peninsula, as they 
pertained to Christian, Jewish, and pantheistic communities, and to the 
pre-revelatory emergence of Islam, which limited some of the practices that 
many people today criticize.

But Jojo seems not to have seen this posting, though he did say he would 
respond to it (and this I hope from his own knowledge rather than 
assertian-based pseudo-sources), for he repeats assertions that are shown in 
the posting to be flat-out incorrect.

On Dec 31, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>  wrote:
>> At 10:37 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> 
>>> Hence, in you, the corruption of islam is seen by everyone.  The same
>>> corruption that justifies to the world that it is OK to fondle a 9 year old
>>> little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS, just because other people are doing it.
>>> No matter how you justify it, that's CREEPY.
>> 
>> 
>> BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS. What is
>> obviously false does not become more true by being repeated over and over.
>> Jojo actually acknowledged that this one was false, but has continued to
>> emphasize it.
> 
> 
> Jojo is using hyperbole so calling it false is an ineffective repsonse.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
> 
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Thanks, Jojo, I appreciate your response to my query.

It seems to me that you have faith that Genesis is literally accurate. How did 
you find your way to this faith? Was it difficult? Easy?  How unshakeable is 
your faith?

Again,thank you for your response.


On Dec 30, 2012, at 11:09 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

> OK, since you asked, do not call me a troll by answering this.
> 
> 
> Genesis chapter 6 is the source of this.  This passage is the reason why God 
> destroyed the Earth with the flood.
> 
> 6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, 
> and daughters were born unto them,
> 
> 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they 
> took them wives of all which they chose.
> 
> 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he 
> also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
> 
> 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the 
> sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to 
> them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
> 
> 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that 
> every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
> 
> 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved 
> him at his heart.
> 
> 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of 
> the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the 
> air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
> 
> 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hebrew word translated as Giants is Nephilim.
> 
> The Hebrew words for Sons of God literally means "sons of Elohim".  In the 
> Old Testament, only direct creations of God are referred to as Sons of God. 
> Only Adam, Eve and Angels are direct creations of God;  but Eve is not a son, 
> so that leaves Adam and Angels.  So, clearly this passage refers to fallen 
> angels mating with human females producing giants and mighty men of renown.  
> Men of renown means these men are known by the various histories of the 
> region.
> 
> Throughout history and in every culture - Romans, Greeks, Assyrian, 
> Babylonian, Persian, Sumerian, etc, there is mythology relating to gods 
> mating with human women producing extraordinary hybrids.  The Sumerians have 
> their Annunaki.  The Greeks with their pantheon of gods which the Romans 
> adopted wholesale more or less.  In these mythology, there is Hercules, half 
> god half man with great size and strength.  There is Perseus, half god son of 
> Zeus.  There is Atlas, half god, big and strong depicted as carrying the 
> Earth on his back.  These are the men that are renown.
> 
> Google the video "Return of the Nephilim" by Chuck Missler.  Chuck used be in 
> the Defense Industry.  He was an insider.  In his videos, he tries to 
> document the link between Nephilims and modern UFOs.  Watch it and judge for 
> yourself.
> 
> Of course, there are also other videos when you google "UFOs", "Nephilim", 
> "Annunaki", "NWO", "illuminati", etc.  Some good some crazy.  Judge for 
> yourself.
> 
> There are books about this subject.  I do not play video games so I do not 
> know if there are.  I'm pretty this is as this is a common theme the 
> illuminati wants to desensitize people on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
> 
> 
> Thanks. This is fascinating.
> 
> What are the sources for this information? "There is reason to believe that 
> fallen angels are trying to breed with humans to create a hybrid race.  The 
> Bible called these hybrids Nephilims. They were universal during the days of 
> Noah. They interbred with human women to give birth to giant hybrids - 
> Hercules, Persues, Atlas etc.  They interbreed with normal animal to give 
> birth to hideous dinasaurs and loathsome creatures."
> 
> What are the sources for this information, and for the rest of your 
> statements in this email?  Books?
> 
> Are there any movies or video games that depict these themes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 27, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> 
>> OK, since you asked.  Don't say I am trolling.
>> 
>> 
>> There is reason to believe that fallen angels are trying to breed with 
>> humans to create a hybrid race.  The Bible called these hybrids Nephilims. 
>> They were universal during the days of Noah. They interbred with human women 
>> to give birth to giant hybrids - Hercules, Persues, Atlas etc.  They 
>> interbreed with normal animal to give birth to hideous dinasaurs and 
>> loathsome creatures.  This was the primary reason why God had to wipe out 
>> the entire race of life on Earth with a global flood.  Fallen angels and 
>> demons wanted to subve

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

This is incorrect, Jojo.

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim?

On Dec 30, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

> His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia.  You 
> can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
> 
> 
> On what evidence do you base your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim?
> 
> 
> On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> 
>> No, I am not stating that the "President" is a muslim.  I am stating that 
>> the Usurper is a muslim.  We currently don't have a legitimate president; we 
>> have a usurper sitting on the throne.
>> 
>> Why doesn't he just come clean?  He could do this with a single 2 minute 
>> phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC.  He 
>> can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill  the 
>> Birther movement and start the healing of the nation.  He can do all that in 
>> 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to 
>> block access to this vault BC.  Why block access to such an innocuous 
>> document?  WHY indeed?
>> 
>> He won't because he can't.  This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped 
>> up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.
>> 
>> 
>> Jojo
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
>> 
>> 
>> Are you stating that the President is Muslim?
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>> 
>>> Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related 
>>> to previous and current presidents.  Anything about this current president 
>>> is covered by this order.  IF anyone wants to release information about 
>>> Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) 
>>> or thru the Presidential counsel;  for approval. This is the veil of 
>>> corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are 
>>> gving him a pass.  I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it 
>>> helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jojo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 
>>> 
>>> To: ; 
>>> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
>>> 
>>> 
 At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after he 
> took power.  The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order 
> 13233.  But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require 
> his approval before release of any information, obstensively because of 
> "Executive Privelege".

 Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly.

 "Release of any information." Sure. "Any information" of what type, where 
 located, and by whom?

> Now, Lomax, who is lying now.  Do I get my apology now?  What exactly 
> have you debunked?   you blatant liar.

 No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you 
 claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive Order 
 did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically.

 [...]
> Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot.  Let's see what spin and lies you'll 
> come up next.

 You've acknowledged all along that what you are doing is spinning. You 
 have acknowledged that you say things that aren't true to create a 
 dramatic image. That's "spin." But I'll give you a fair chance here.

 You claimed that this document is an Executive Order which blocks access 
 to Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to which you 
 are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, "If he fails to apologize, 
 or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a 
 liar."

 Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to apply 
 to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here right in 
 front of us, no more research should be necessary.

 But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive Order 
 that blocks public access to the "vault" birth certificate. That access is 
 blocked by Hawaiian law on the privacy of records (as is true, I think, in 
 all states). Some access to records is blocked by HIPAA, a federal law 
 relating to the privacy of medical records, and there are other laws 
 protecting the privacy of certain records, but no relevant Executive Order 
 that does what Jojo claims.

 He lied, and he is continuing to lie. But ... his turn

RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

2012-12-31 Thread a.ashfield

Steven Vincent Johnson 
wrote: 
"However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing 
evidence to be independently validated."


Actually he has. The third party verification of the Hot Cat was 
completed a couple of weeks ago and Rossi expects the results (which he 
has not seen) to be published early in February.


Likewise, Rossi claims his first 1 MW Hot Cat will be finished in 
February and the working unit made available for inspection a couple of 
months after it has been set up.Considering the short time since the 
original E-Cat this would be remarkably fast if he does it.The original 
1 MW E-Cat is supposed to be sold to a customer for March delivery and 
may also be made available for inspection.Rossi claims that the units 
delivered to the military were different.


In my previous post I left out that Rossi states he has provided his new 
partner with his IP so there is no possibility of it going to the grave 
with him.


With so much in the pipe-line either we get solid news soon or it will 
look very suspicious.

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

This is incorrect, Jojo.

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim?

On Dec 30, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:

> His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia.  You 
> can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
> 
> 
> On what evidence do you base your assertion that President Obama is a Muslim?
> 
> 
> On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> 
>> No, I am not stating that the "President" is a muslim.  I am stating that 
>> the Usurper is a muslim.  We currently don't have a legitimate president; we 
>> have a usurper sitting on the throne.
>> 
>> Why doesn't he just come clean?  He could do this with a single 2 minute 
>> phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC.  He 
>> can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill  the 
>> Birther movement and start the healing of the nation.  He can do all that in 
>> 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to 
>> block access to this vault BC.  Why block access to such an innocuous 
>> document?  WHY indeed?
>> 
>> He won't because he can't.  This is the pattern of a corrupt leader proped 
>> up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic forces.
>> 
>> 
>> Jojo
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
>> 
>> 
>> Are you stating that the President is Muslim?
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>> 
>>> Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything related 
>>> to previous and current presidents.  Anything about this current president 
>>> is covered by this order.  IF anyone wants to release information about 
>>> Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right henchman) 
>>> or thru the Presidential counsel;  for approval. This is the veil of 
>>> corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are 
>>> gving him a pass.  I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it 
>>> helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jojo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 
>>> 
>>> To: ; 
>>> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
>>> 
>>> 
 At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after he 
> took power.  The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order 
> 13233.  But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require 
> his approval before release of any information, obstensively because of 
> "Executive Privelege".

 Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly.

 "Release of any information." Sure. "Any information" of what type, where 
 located, and by whom?

> Now, Lomax, who is lying now.  Do I get my apology now?  What exactly 
> have you debunked?   you blatant liar.

 No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you 
 claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive Order 
 did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically.

 [...]
> Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot.  Let's see what spin and lies you'll 
> come up next.

 You've acknowledged all along that what you are doing is spinning. You 
 have acknowledged that you say things that aren't true to create a 
 dramatic image. That's "spin." But I'll give you a fair chance here.

 You claimed that this document is an Executive Order which blocks access 
 to Obama's vault BC. Below, I quote a bit of what I wrote, to which you 
 are responding. I wrote, in more than one way, "If he fails to apologize, 
 or point to an actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a 
 liar."

 Okay, how does this Order do that? What would cause this document to apply 
 to birth records held by Hawaiian state officials? It's all here right in 
 front of us, no more research should be necessary.

 But, also for the record, I'll say it again: There is no Executive Order 
 that blocks public access to the "vault" birth certificate. That access is 
 blocked by Hawaiian law on the privacy of records (as is true, I think, in 
 all states). Some access to records is blocked by HIPAA, a federal law 
 relating to the privacy of medical records, and there are other laws 
 protecting the privacy of certain records, but no relevant Executive Order 
 that does what Jojo claims.

 He lied, and he is continuing to lie. But ... his turn

RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

2012-12-31 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Ashfield:

 

...

 

> ... I am puzzled by your [Jed's] statement that you have spoken to large

> investors who confirm the E-Cat works

 

That certainly is an intriguing statement coming from Mr. Rothwell.

 

What's frustrating about all of this, at least from my perspective, is the
fact that we had yet to see anything from Rossi that seems to be even close
to be considered a commercial product. All I've seen (and read about) has
been nothing more than a lot of hot air. Granted, there seems to be
tantalizing evidence and lots of grandiose promises coming from Rossi.
However, what is significant is that Rossi never allows his tantalizing
evidence to be independently validated - that that certainly puts the kibosh
on his credibility, and righty so. Maybe Rossi will finally pull a rabbit
out of the hat. I sure hope so, but who the hell knows. I sure as hell
don't.

 

The only conclusion that makes any sense to me is to speculate that these
unnamed "investors" (who presumably have confirmed the fact that there
really is something to Rossi's e-Cats), are doing everything within their
power to make sure that Rossi works out the flaws before potential
competition catches wind. One of the best ways to help ensure that they stay
in first place would be to continue to insinuate to potential competition
the impression that Rossi's organization is highly flawed, or worse,
fraudulent. That seems to have been easy to accomplish! ;-) Don't bother
looking into the matter. Move along. move along. nothing to see here.

 

Again, I'm left with the assumption that there must still remain serious
flaws and impediments to the commercialization of Rossi's eCats. Will Rossi
work out the flaws before the competition finally catches wind? It would
appear that Mr. Rothwell doesn't think so. History may prove him right.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

2012-12-31 Thread Jed Rothwell

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

>>
>> Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that?
>>
>>
>> Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many
>> Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004 DoE
>> panel, and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view.
>>
>
> That does not mean that Gibbs holds it!

Look, he said right here, in this forum, that he wants to see a "testable
theory." He said that again, and again, and again. I pointed to the
testable *claim* made by EPRI. A claim, not a theory. I pointed out that to
an experimentalist, confirming that claim is as good as confirming a
nuclear theory.

Gibbs did not respond. I assume he is saying the same thing as I have heard
from ten-thousand theorists since 1989: "We will not believe this until you
show us a complete nuclear theory that we agree with." I assume he is
parroting that point of view. Okay, so ahead and ask Gibbs what he meant.
If I am wrong, he can say so.

> Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands a
>> "testable theory."
>>
>
> Had he "demanded a testable theory" you'd be right.

It is right here!!! Here is an example:

Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable
> theory?

> Maybe. The DoE may easily be in bed with the hot fusion projects, it was
> in 1989. So? Huizenga's book is *still* embarrassing, and is more and more
> visible that way.

In recent years, Chu and many others have cited Huizenga and his book as
proof that cold fusion does not exist. Most mainstream physicists agree
with Huizenga completely, that cold fusion violates theory and it cannot
possibly exist, and that all reported results are mistakes or fraud. I have
heard that from HUNDREDS of leading scientists such as Chu. I am certain
that is what they believe. I am also certain they have not read any papers
on this subject. That is what they tell me.

You may think the book is embarrassing. I think it is a hatchet job.
However, Chu and others think it is the truth.

>  But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it.
>
>
He wrote most of the book while conducting the ERAB panel investigation. It
was published soon after ERAB was published. He was still at the peak of
his intellectual power, and political power. He repeated the statements in
the book many times, in person, and in letter to me and to others.

> What you saw with the Amoco situation would be how he responded when he
> couldn't understand what was happening. He'd flee.

He understood perfectly what was happening. I am sure he did not think the
results were real. I am pretty sure he thought: "Another damn fake result!
More nonsense to contend with!" He did not say that. He refused to talk to
the authors. But that is what other leading skeptics said, and I am sure he
agreed.

As for his statements about Miles in his book, he was posturing to make
himself seem open minded. He never took those results seriously, or any of
the similar helium results from Italy. He knew about those results, because
he attended ICCF conferences. I think that was before the second edition of
the book. He might have written about them or spoken about them any time.
For that matter, he might have described the tritium from Bockris or
Storms, or the excess heat results from McKubre. But he never said ONE WORD
ABOUT ANY OF THAT. Not in his book, not in public, not in his letters.
Never. He said only "it is all bunk" (to me). He did not talk about these
results not because he wanted to hide the truth, or he was afraid he was
wrong. Only because he was sure it was bunk, and he thought that even
mentioning these results would confuse the issue and make some people
imagine there might be something to cold fusion after all.

He knew he was right. He was supremely confident of that. He saw it as his
job to present the facts which proved he was right, and not to present any
of the lies and nonsense published by McKubre and the others. That was his
point of view, and he made it 100% clear to me and to many others. Steven
Chu and many others have said the same thing, almost word for word. These
people do not hide their opinions on this matter.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

2012-12-31 Thread James Bowery

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> What irks me is when skeptics do not even bother to read the papers by
> Bockris, Gerischer or McKubre

The barrier I ran into with one of the founders of the DoE was a demand
that I filter your bibliograpny down to only papers that appeared in
journals of Science Citation Index.

That's no small task and I had to write a few perl scripts to come close.

I believe I posted the results of that to vortex-l when I first started
participating in hopes that I could get some help penetrating this
barrier.  I mean, its not every day you get someone that was hired by
Carter to found the DoE's EIA and one of the few Carter appointees retained
by Reagan to offer any conditions whatsoever under which he would consider
a paper reporting replication of the P&F phenomenon worth his time to read.

Yes, yes, yes...  I know, it was my responsibility to disabuse him of his
demand for such a filter, wasn't it?  Too bad.  Not gonna happen.

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

2012-12-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

ah ah... good professors and very strict say my (muslim) step-child...
my (muslim) wife confirm , and me too... if catholic religion disappear, we
have to keep the schools...

in Indonesia like in france, religious schools have to enforce mixing and
non-segregation
except madrassa in indonesia which are too religious to allow that...
noboby's perfect...

2012/12/31 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

> At 10:17 PM 12/30/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>
>> His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia.
>>  You can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim.
>>
>
> Who says that? Muslims go to Christian schools all the time.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

2012-12-31 Thread a.ashfield

Jed, you have it correctly.Mark Gibbs is caught up in the current "pc 
scientific way" of demanding a theory before experimental results can be 
accepted.


It is even worse than that. Consider climate science.There the theory is 
preferred to the actual evidence when the two diverge.The current AR5 
has a phrase saying the results maybe either within the model limits, or 
above them, or below them. (!) That the IPCC forecast has been falsified 
apparently doesn't matter.


My direct experience of DoE is that they will follow policy from on high 
no matter what the cost.Larry Penberthy (father of all electric glass 
melting) and I made DoE a proposal that would save $100 billion cleaning 
up the radwaste at Hanford.http://people.duke.edu/~mgg6/A67402113108.pdf 
 but they refused to 
consider it until /after/ a new contract had been signed to do what they 
had previously planned.Their technical people were ordered not to talk 
to us until after the contract signing.


Why not accept Andrea Rossi's statement. "It will not be believed until 
working commercial units are on the market"?It looks like he was right.I 
am puzzled by your statement that you have spoken to large investors who 
confirm the E-Cat works but elsewhere consider it dubious.What seems 
overlooked is that Rossi owes nothing to the general public but, as you 
say, needs to convince his major investors.He appears to have done that.


The patent situation is ludicrous.I forecast years ago the lawyers stand 
to make as much money from the mess as the inventors do from LENR.

RE: [Vo]:List integrity

2012-12-31 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

I went digging through my Junk eMail folder to find what I was sure would be
a response from Mr.Jaro.

 

Mr. Jaro replied:

 

> And the provocations and insults continue.  

> 

> Since you are clearly incapable of conprehending simple English

> prose.  I will spell it out for you.  I drank a total of about 5

> bottles of beer and I drank all of it before I was 20 years old. 

> I haven't touched alcohol since then to the present.

> 

> Jeepers, I thought I was clear.  No wonder, we have a lot of

> conflict here.  People's comprehension skills are just lacking.

 

Indeed, I'm a flawed individual, Jojo. Nobodies' perfect... certainly not
me. Thank god for that.

 

So, you don't drink. Rigidly so.

It strikes me that something very powerful about the effects of alcohol.
more precisely the effects of alcoholism, must have made a huge impression
on you. Why have you deliberately chosen not to touch a drop of alcohol
since you were 20 years old? Did you personally witness the destructive
power of alcoholism in some of the immediate care givers who were supposed
to have been raising you?

 

What happened? What did you do? More to the point, what did they do to you?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

2012-12-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

my wife know that school.
it is a Jakarta dowtown secular state school...
the country is muslim, yet there is 6 religion allowed, yet mandatory (you
have to believe in one single god, with a paradise... that is the rule...
whichever it is is your choice, even if like US there are political group
using religion to reach power, and some increasing discrimination against
minorities, nationally or locally)

until recently when liberalisation inspired by humanrightists develop, the
hijab (woman head scarf, which is much more sexy in indonesia than in saudi
arabia) was forbidden in state school...

and whatever you can say, it is clear Obama speak more like an evangelist
priest...
A bit shocking for a secular French, but if american love that style, it is
their own freedom...
Our choices since 10 years are criticized by more than 50% of the
population, so we cannot give lessons... ah ah ;-)

note also that what is evident from France is that US president is very
weak because of the constitution, by design ... parliament rules and is
republican...

It is clear that US fear their government...

whether it is good or not is not to be discussed... I just remind facts.

2012/12/31 Jojo Jaro 

> His own autobiography says that he went to muslim school in Indonesia.
>  You can't go to muslim school unless you're muslim.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" <
> ldebiv...@gmail.com>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:14 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
>
>
> On what evidence do you base your assertion that President Obama is a
> Muslim?
>
>
> On Dec 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>
>  No, I am not stating that the "President" is a muslim.  I am stating that
>> the Usurper is a muslim.  We currently don't have a legitimate president;
>> we have a usurper sitting on the throne.
>>
>> Why doesn't he just come clean?  He could do this with a single 2 minute
>> phone call to the Hawaiian authorities to open access to his vault BC.  He
>> can quickly end this controversy, establish his legitimacy, kill  the
>> Birther movement and start the healing of the nation.  He can do all that
>> in 2 minutes, yet he spends over 4 million dollars of Tax payer's money to
>> block access to this vault BC.  Why block access to such an innocuous
>> document?  WHY indeed?
>>
>> He won't because he can't.  This is the pattern of a corrupt leader
>> proped up by a corrupt shadow government strengthened by corrupt demonic
>> forces.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "de Bivort Lawrence" <
>> ldebiv...@gmail.com>
>> To: 
>> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
>>
>>
>> Are you stating that the President is Muslim?
>>
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>>
>>  Lomax does not understand that this Executive Order covers anything
>>> related to previous and current presidents.  Anything about this current
>>> president is covered by this order.  IF anyone wants to release information
>>> about Obama's BC, they have to go thru Eric Holder (the corrupt right
>>> henchman) or thru the Presidential counsel;  for approval. This is the veil
>>> of corruption surrounding this usurper-in-thief and people like lomax are
>>> gving him a pass.  I'm not surprised as lies are OK for Lomax as long as it
>>> helps prop up his illegitimate usurper muslim president.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <
>>> a...@lomaxdesign.com>
>>> To: ; 
>>> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 6:59 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
>>>
>>>
>>>  At 03:50 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

> Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after
> he took power.  The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order
> 13233.  But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require
> his approval before release of any information, obstensively because of
> "Executive Privelege".
>

 Obstentively? Took me a moment. Ostensibly.

 "Release of any information." Sure. "Any information" of what type,
 where located, and by whom?

  Now, Lomax, who is lying now.  Do I get my apology now?  What exactly
> have you debunked?   you blatant liar.
>

 No, no apology, unless you show that the Executive Order does what you
 claimed. I not only never claimed that this *particular* Exectuive Order
 did not exist, I linked to it and discussed it specifically.

 [...]

> Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot.  Let's see what spin and lies
> you'll come up next.
>

 You've acknowledged all along that what you are doing is spinning. You
 have acknowledged that you say things that aren't true to create a dramatic
 image. That's "spin." But I'll give you a fair chance here.

 You claimed that this document is a

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

2012-12-31 Thread ChemE Stewart

I think we are dealing with an entropic force that can remove entropy from
the gas at times as well as give it back in the way of charged particles

On Monday, December 31, 2012, Eric Walker wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM, David Roberson 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> I am fairly confident that these inventors do not claim that the
>> electrical energy recovered due to the returning piston is significant
>> compared to the mechanical output.
>
>
> I haven't followed this detail up to now.  Here I am way out of my depth,
> but consider the following:
>
> * There is probably a high-capacity capacitor bank in most models that is
> used in part to create an electric arc in the gas.
> * When Feynman pulled the plug during the demo, the engine was ok for a
> little while, and then Papp got nervous, and then there was an explosion
> and some weird liquid.
> * In one of the kits (Bob's? John's?), a coil has been omitted; presumably
> this coil when present will have the effect of recovering some electricity
> through inductance, whatever else it does.
>
> What if in the Feynman incident the capacitor bank was somehow maxed out
> and then released its magic smoke?
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical

2012-12-31 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Jed:

 

...

 

> His [Huizenga's] purpose was to preserve funding for high energy physics,
...

 

And that, IMO, pretty much sums it up.

 

As for all the other annoying shenanigans, they all strike me as just
another means to an end. Whatever works in order to squash the opposition.
If it sticks to the side of the refrigerator. mission accomplished. 

 

When the dust eventually settles, and historical scholars roll up their
sleeves and start sifting through the all the personal & public
documentation, I suspect the need to preserve the care and feeding of the
high energy physics community alone will most likely stand out like an
undeniable sore thumb.

 

I freely admit a personal fantasy of mine where I hope the Vortex-l list may
help play a minor role in pointing scholars in the right direction
concerning whom to contact in order to get the low-down, but who knows. 

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

2012-12-31 Thread Craig

On 12/30/2012 11:09 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> OK, since you asked, do not call me a troll by answering this.
>
>
> Genesis chapter 6 is the source of this.  This passage is the reason
> why God destroyed the Earth 

I think this is the source of the conflict:

Epistemology dictates that all knowledge comes from observation. When we
converse with each other in an attempt to exchange knowledge, we use the
Universe around us as a reference point in the exchange of truth. There
is no such thing as communication without this common reference point.
Words refer to existents and communication is act of exchanging
observations about the Universe. There is no other source for knowledge
since the Universe is all that exists, by definition. This epistemology
is at the foundation of science.

Using a book, such as Genesis, as a source of information is not valid.
It is heresay from an unverifiable source. Likewise, faith is not a
means of cognition, since there is no independent way of ascertaining
which faith is correct -- and what correct even means without a
reference to the Universe.

So Jaro, what you're seeing as insults, are challenges to your
epistemology. They are not insults, but you may interpret them as such
since such challenges rip at core beliefs. I also see a problem with
definitions you use. You use terms like 'God' and 'Angels' without
defining these terms. When I've spoken with Christians before on such
terms, they have never provided a definition. With 'God', they will
typically say that he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present, but
such descriptions defy definition. To define something is to delimit it
from other existents. Without a way to delimit its characteristics, it
simply cannot exist. There is no difference between something that is
'everything' and something that is 'nothing'. Which characteristics
would be different? There can't be a difference when there are no
identifiable characteristics.

Craig

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Papp and Water

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:40 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I am fairly confident that these inventors do not claim that the electrical
> energy recovered due to the returning piston is significant compared to the
> mechanical output.

I haven't followed this detail up to now.  Here I am way out of my depth,
but consider the following:

* There is probably a high-capacity capacitor bank in most models that is
used in part to create an electric arc in the gas.
* When Feynman pulled the plug during the demo, the engine was ok for a
little while, and then Papp got nervous, and then there was an explosion
and some weird liquid.
* In one of the kits (Bob's? John's?), a coil has been omitted; presumably
this coil when present will have the effect of recovering some electricity
through inductance, whatever else it does.

What if in the Feynman incident the capacitor bank was somehow maxed out
and then released its magic smoke?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airplane- LENR

2012-12-31 Thread Teslaalset

Robin,
The required water could be retrieved from the atmosphere during the
flight, e.g. by condensation.
I guess we need a few figures and statistics whether this is feasible
though.


On Monday, December 31, 2012, wrote:

> In reply to  Alain Sepeda's message of Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:54:02 +0100:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Their idea is to use hybrid propulsion...
> >
> >LENR have huge autonomy, but LENr and worse, turbines, have low power
> >density
> >Since peak power is huge with planes, while average is lower, it is
> >rational to store energy...
> >
> >in the report they propose batteries...
>
>
> Given the huge weight savings in fuel, perhaps the lower efficiency of
> steam
> turbines can be lived with?
>
> The problem with generating Hydrogen on the spot is that all the Hydrogen
> required needs to be carried in the form of water, which once again adds a
> huge
> amount of weight, since the energy liberated in the turbine is normal
> chemical
> energy, implying much more water than conventional fuel (assuming it can't
> be
> condensed & reused once it has been through the gas turbines).
>
> All in all, my generator would be better. Energetic alphas generated
> through
> fusion as required, and used to heat in-flowing air to produce thrust in an
> almost conventional gas turbine. About a lb of fuel would easily take a
> fully
> laden 747-8 around the planet, non-stop.
> [snip]
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies

2012-12-31 Thread Nigel Dyer

Indeed.   There is a Catholic school in Birmingham, UK, where the 
majority of pupils are Muslim


http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birminghams-catholic-school-where-90-of-the-pupils-231115

Nigel

On 31/12/2012 04:40, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Yes, "Christian" catholic schools are more tolerant of other faiths, 
but not muslims.  You can not go to a muslim school like the one Obama 
went to unless you are a muslim.


Before Lomax spins this again; may I simply ask readers to research 
this on their own to see which of us both is lying.



Jojo

Re: [Vo]:List integrity