date:20091001


At 08:45 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:

Please note that Dr. Swartz has not as yet posted the URLs of the papers
to Vortex.


I posted a URL to the two papers Swartz cited, and those 
republications of the journal that I linked to have many more papers 
by Swartz, he's done a lot of work. However, I didn't notice him 
giving permission for reproduction. Simply that the papers exist on 
newenergytimes.com indicates nothing about permission. NET may or may 
not have permission from Swartz, and may or may not have permission 
from the original publshers, and that's between NET and them


It was not easy to find those papers. What I found at first were 
other papers that had the two papers in question as references, but 
not the papers. Then I noticed the file name, that it contained the 
juornal volume and issue number, and guessed that if I changed the 
filename at NET, I'd link to the other issues of the journal. Bingo. 
It looks like NET has the complete Journal of New Energy? That's 
really cool, thanks, Steve, your work is highly appreciated. See you in March.

Re: correction /Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current

2009-10-01 Thread Harry Veeder

- Original Message -
From: mix...@bigpond.com
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:09 pm
Subject: Re: correction /Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a
Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current

 In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:52:54 -
 0400:Hi,
 [snip]
 The complete circle/loop/circuit is this:

 'negative' to 'negative' (with a 'positive' in between).

 The 'positive' in between is what makes the equations work out. I 
 think you
 are having a problem because you expect the net EMF to integrate to 
 zero (begin
 point = end point), which it would do if you take the step into 
 account. Note
 that the EMF does not change monotonically around the complete 
 loop. It does
 along the wire (assuming a constant resistance/length ratio), 
 however there is
 at least one step when you hit the electrodes. (In the case of a 
 battery perhaps
 more accurately one step at each electrode).
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Explaining the steady current in terms of EMFs does not lead to a
contradiction
so this is not where my problem lies. However, if the steady current is
rigorously explained in terms of electric fields a contradiction seems
to arise. The steady current requires that the electric field lines
around the loop (i.e. from '-' to '-') form a closed path, otherwise the
current would be  fleeting instead of steady. On the other hand this
contradicts the rule that electric fields cannot form a closed loop when
the B field is not varying as is the case with a *steady* current.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science

2009-10-01 Thread Dr. Mitchell Swartz


At 08:51 PM 9/30/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com  wrote:

Perhaps because he doesn't have written permission to upload it?
Why not grant him permission, in a post to Vortex, and see what he does?
Wouldn't that be an interesting experiment?



 For those interested, I have been working with Dr. Brian Josephson
many months, as an experiment, sending some of the papers by
email to Jed, cc to Brian.

  The fact is: Brian and the others received them.
 Brian encouraged Jed to put them up on his site, but Jed insisted
he edit them. Thereafter, Jed always found a problem.

   I have posted my papers repeated to vortex and CMNS and anyone
who has requested them. Many times.

 The disingenuity of Rothwell that they have been withheld for any of
Rothwell's fabricated convoluted reasons is brazen, and obviously
laughable.

Dr. Mitchell Swartz

RE: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

2009-10-01 Thread Dr. Mitchell Swartz



At 12:47 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
Dr.
Swartz:

You should read carefully Stephen Lawrence's
post today, 9/30/2009, at 6:16PM.

You might want to recind your comment since
Stephen included quotes from as far back as 5 Dec 2004 which CLEARLY show
that Jed has ALWAYS admitted that he got the CD from you, but that he
couldn't read it. Thus, your comment about his lying about
getting the CD, and finally admitting he got it are
obviously an exaggeration at the very least, if not a conscious attempt
to deceive.

All I want to know now is when are you going
to post a reply to Vortex that specifically gives Jed permission to
download and post your papers on lenr-canr's website Shouldn't
take you more than 2 or 3 minutes to compose that and post it here...
I'll be looking for it in the morning!

Cheers,

-Mark
 Mark,
 Jed and others on vortex have had permission for quite a long
time.
 I have posted my papers repeatedly to vortex, and CMNS, and
anyone
who has requested them. Many times.
 The lies of Rothwell that they have been withheld for any of

Rothwell's fabricated convoluted reasons is brazen, and obviously
laughable. We do not want the work edited by Jed.
For those interested, I have been working with Dr. Brian
Josephson
many months, as an experiment, sending the papers by 
email to Jed and Brian. 
 The fact is: Brian and the others received them. 
Brian encouraged Jed to put them up on his site, but Jed insisted

e edit them. Thereafter, Jed always found a problem.
 We don't believe the contrived CD rants by Jed, because
there were more than one set of CD. One was given in hand 
and the other was mailed. I still have the postal receipt
included from paper copies sent.
Thereafter, multiple pdf copies were sent. 
One doubts that all of the copies were all 'bad', 
given that every other recipient had no problem with
CDs, with the paper receipts, with emails, with second
pdfs ... etc. etc.
Permission was not only given, but several times, including
implicitly by the very effort made to send the documents.
 Have good day.
 Mitchell Swartz

Re: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science

2009-10-01 Thread John Berry

Jed, BTW did you settle out of court?

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:

  POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS
 has been at the web site since 1996.
 The url is 
 http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.htmlhttp://world.std.com/%7Emica/posvar.html

 Is paper 1 on the LENR-CANR web site?


 Nope. Obviously I don't keep close track of your website. I wasn't aware it
 was uploaded, and you have never given me permission to upload or copy this
 or anything else. Anytime I even asked you threatened to sue me, so I
 stopped asking years ago.

 You went ballistic right here in Vortex when I uploaded an abstract, for
 crying out loud. Everyone knows you do this kind of thing, although they
 didn't know you played the settle of court game to intimidate, silence and
 fleece anyone who crosses you or criticizes you. I have heard from other
 people you did that to. Gene told me don't ask you for permission, never
 quote you, and and don't respond to your threats. I did as he suggested all
 these years, out of respect for him, but today I got fed up seeing you play
 me and make me look like a fool, so I decided to tell people what's been
 going on.

 By the way, this positional variation hypothesis is damn nonsense, as I
 and others pointed out here. Complete garbage, similar to the Jones
 recombination hypothesis. However, I would upload it to LENR-CANR if you
 gave permission. Why not? We have lots of garbage. That's a good thing,
 really. It lets readers see who is right and who is talking all out their
 heads.

 Anyway, you are in a hole and I suggest you stop digging it deeper.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

[snip] might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation 
approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed fusion, 
basically a protein, I assume, setting up confinement conditions that 
facilitate fusion.[snip]

Abd,
I am not familiar with this biological transmutation but assume your 
previous reference to spontaneous human combustion also comes under this 
heading? I have suspected such a connection since learning the rare earth metal 
calcium is a porous powder which the body uses to build bone structure. I can 
only speculate at some natural process or disease that builds or leaches away 
to form pores of Casimir geometry in a biological equivalent of creating 
skeletal catalysts (no pun intended). Something out of the ordinary might be 
needed to encourage the ambient gas in these pores to become monatomic but the 
possible connection to excess heat is an intriguing clue.
Fran

[Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)



On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Really, did Storms (2007) actually have to mention spontaneous  
human combustion? It was speculation upon speculation. (p. 142.) He  
does have much more reason to discuss Mills, and he does it in  
quite some depth. For some unknown reason, the more extensive  
discussion (p. 184-186) is missing from the index; he actually  
gives much more ink to Mills than to any other proposed explanations.


I think spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is worthy of consideration  
in relation to cold fusion because (a) there is solid evidence it  
exists and (b) it may provide clues as to how to achieve a robust  
free or nuclear energy process in a chemical environment. This has  
been discussed in this forum in past years. A summary of my comments  
here is provided at:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SHC.pdf

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science


Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:


 For those interested, I have been working with Dr. Brian Josephson
many months, as an experiment, sending some of the papers by
email to Jed, cc to Brian.

  The fact is: Brian and the others received them.
 Brian encouraged Jed to put them up on his site, but Jed insisted
he edit them. Thereafter, Jed always found a problem.


I insisted they be converted to text Acrobat format. I did not 
propose to change the content at all. Here are some of the letters 
from that exchange. I normally do not disclose this sort of thing, 
but I shall make an exception.


As I said here the other day, authors who do not wish to provide the 
papers in text Acrobat format are invited to take a hike. Anyone who 
finds this requirement onerous or unfair is invited to run your own 
damn web site. Yesterday I learned that Swartz has uploaded some of 
his own papers to his own site in HTML text format, for crying out 
loud. Why should he object to text Acrobat format?!? This makes zero sense.


So far, with ~1000 papers uploaded, only one author has objected to 
the format and organization of LENR-CANR.org: Swartz.


By the way, converting from HTML text to Acrobat text takes exactly 
as much time as it takes to print the document. I have a print driver 
that redirects the output to an Acrobat file. It's a piece of cake.


As readers here know, lately I have bent the standards to allow 
image-over-text format, because I got books in that format hundreds 
of pages long, such as the NSF/EPRI proceedings. This is not the same 
as image Acrobat format. I spent about a month correcting the 
underlying text in those books. There are still errors, 
unfortunately. (The text is underlying or hidden you might say. 
You can do a Control-F to find it, and Google finds it.)


- Jed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FROM Swartz, 11 Jun 2006

Brian, and Jed:


Previously, I wrote:

Our papers could be available in pdf image format, as I have stated before
if:  1) we are satisfied with the image quality,
 2) we have the opportunity to check each prior to them being 
made available, and

 3) there is no editing of the paper after we ok the pdf image.
   Previously, we have given pdf image papers to Jed of several 
papers, but he was wanted to use

his OCR on them, and that is not acceptable at this point in time.
We will allow OCR of the abstracts which can then be re-added in a 
non-image format

attached to the pdf-image papers,  as long as 1, 2, and 3 above are used, and
we have opportunity to check the OCR'd abstract text.
   In my experience, this use of pdf imaging creates a documents which is
a few hundred Kbytes to, at most, 2 megabytes if there are lots of 
graphic images
and photographs.  That should take care of all the problems cited in 
the missive below.

  Hope that helps.  Let me know if this is acceptable.

   If this is acceptable, I will ask Alan to scan the CAM paper into 
pdf-image and port
the pdf-image paper to Jed.   I will be meeting with him shortly to 
go over some

experiments now ongoing here.  Let us know.

   Mitchell

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FROM ME TO Swartz and Josephson 11 Jun 2006

Mitchell Swartz writes:

Our papers could be available in pdf image format, as I have stated before
if:  1) we are satisfied with the image quality,

Image format is not good. It does not index properly so people cannot 
find it; it is too big, and people have trouble reading it. It has to 
be Acrobat text format. Only the figures and equations should be images.


Let me know if you want my assistance converting to text. My OCR 
program is the best around.


- Jed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FROM ME TO Swartz and Josephson 12 Jun 2006

Let me make it clear that I must insist on the text Acrobat format. 
That is our standard, and it works well for both the readers and for 
the mechanics of the web site. We have had great success distributing 
papers smoothly and rapidly all over the world, at the rate of 20,000 
to 30,000 per month lately. I am confident that I know what I am 
doing, and I know what presentation format is called for.


Making the conversion is only a minor imposition on the author. So 
far no author has complained. If you do not have time to make the 
conversion now, please contact me when you have some free time and 
you are ready to upload the paper. Let me know if you would like 
assistance in the initial OCR phase. It should take you a day or two 
per paper to prepare. If I were you, I would re-enter the equations 
from scratch, and insert the best available graphs and other images. 
But that is up to you. As long as the base format is Acrobat text, 
the document will work with our system.


Of course the content and formatting of the document is entirely up to you.

- Jed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--On 12 June 2006 00:25:39 -0400 Jed Rothwell 
jedrothw...@mindspring.com wrote:



As long as the base format is Acrobat text, the document will work
with our system.

RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

[snip] If so, the only such matrix readily apparent in the human body is the 
skeleton. Possibly dried bone, or bone meal, or a calcium matrix of some kind, 
would be of interest to incorporate in a USP test.
It is especially notable that the human body does not naturally contain solid 
metal. [end snip]

Horace,
I like your article and agree the body contains no solid metal but 
would regard this as a clue to focus on the rare earth metals like calcium.
Best Regards
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 10:27 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)


On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

 Really, did Storms (2007) actually have to mention spontaneous  
 human combustion? It was speculation upon speculation. (p. 142.) He  
 does have much more reason to discuss Mills, and he does it in  
 quite some depth. For some unknown reason, the more extensive  
 discussion (p. 184-186) is missing from the index; he actually  
 gives much more ink to Mills than to any other proposed explanations.

I think spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is worthy of consideration  
in relation to cold fusion because (a) there is solid evidence it  
exists and (b) it may provide clues as to how to achieve a robust  
free or nuclear energy process in a chemical environment. This has  
been discussed in this forum in past years. A summary of my comments  
here is provided at:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SHC.pdf

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner 

I think spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is worthy of consideration  
in relation to cold fusion because (a) there is solid evidence it  
exists and (b) it may provide clues as to how to achieve a robust  
free or nuclear energy process in a chemical environment. This has  
been discussed in this forum in past years. A summary of my comments  
here is provided at:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SHC.pdf


Yes, we have tossed around some wild ideas in the past.

This piece is a good and relatively non-controversial statement of a
controversial situation - since it might portend or suggest the LENR factor.
If the range of possible explanations and contributing factors were to be
made more complete - then it could also mention several other details:

1) Bifurcation from the mundane initiator - The interconnection (in many
of the cases) with cigarettes, alcohol, obesity and season (usually winter).
These would only explain the initiation of the phenomenon, and the
starved-flame scenario which should then be self-quenching, or else
consume the entire residence. Since that does not happen, we must move on to
step two, which could then relate to LENR, or to 

2) The hydrino, hot hydrogen (Langmuir) or alternative fractional-hydrogen
explanation. Either or which can very likely depend on:

3) A pre-exisiting genetic factor that is little known - and would be
involved with the LENR or hot hydrogen process itself, after combustion
initiation by mundane effects, and which could be a factor similar to what
is seen in this video, of a family that has unusual magnetic bio-fields:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADlT9FALOs

Note: the last is NOT offered as a partial explanation for SHC itself - but
only shows that there could be a hidden genetic factor in the accumulation
of certain kinds of metal, in this case with strong external fields - and
that this genetic factor itself is responsible for the SHC effect following
initiation, but has yet to be isolated. This would be true even if the video
turns out to be some kind of hoax.

For instance, if there were found real evidence (transmutation isotopes), in
the analysis of the ash of SHC - or tritium for instance - to suggest a
valid LENR connection, then a genetic trait which might contribute to that
would be a propensity for the tissues (or bone surfaces, most likely) of the
victim to accumulate an active metal or catalytic alloy - not palladium,
since it is rare, but possible an alloy of nickel perhaps with lithium or
boron. Plus we suspect that tobacco is an accumulator of radionuclides.
Tobacco abuse is often seen in SHC victims.

http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/

It is all fascinating, and if you look closely at only the mundane
explanation, it only gets you as far as the combustion initiator, and
possibly the source of some of the radioactivity - but not to the complete
anomaly and unusual reaction, so to speak, which notably does not spread
beyond the victim.

Then - moving a little further afield, there is the idea of a troubled
soul, but let's not go there. We are already over the top of most BS
alarms (including my own).

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 This would be true even if the video
 turns out to be some kind of hoax.

And hoax it is.  Every kid in the world has licked a spoon and have it
adhere to his nose.  Note when the dude puts the (clean) ashtray on
his forehead, he tilts his head back knowing exactly which angle at
which the glass adheres to the skin.

Try it yourself; but, you have to clean the oil off your skin for it to work.

Terry

RE: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion


At 08:58 AM 10/1/2009, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

[snip] might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation
approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed fusion,
basically a protein, I assume, setting up confinement conditions that
facilitate fusion.[snip]

Abd,
I am not familiar with this biological transmutation but 
assume your previous reference to spontaneous human combustion also 
comes under this heading?


Not really, but politically they are similar in certain ways. 
Biological transmutation is a highly controversial field, of course. 
If cold fusion is impossible, biological transmutation would be 
restricted to certain narrow possibilities, such as the acceleration 
of radioactive decay; it's known that the chemical environment can do 
that. But, of course, we think that cold fusion, or something more or 
less equivalent that can result in elemental transformation, is possible.


So biological transmutation is on the table.

With SHC, then, we might imagine an energy source from cold fusion, 
but there are already ample energy sources available for combustion, 
in body fat, for example. How an NAE would not only arise in the body 
such that there is energy release, but that this, then, without 
generating intermediate effects, like your arm burning up but not the 
rest of you, goes whole-hog and incinerates the whole body, seems 
quite a stretch. Quite a stretch. With runaway heat-after-death -- 
which is much more reproducible than SHC -- there is a continuum of 
effects, from none to low to high enough to melt the palladium.


Given that the very existence of SHC is controversial, adding 
controversy to controversy by very publicly speculating on SHC in his 
book, I think Storms shot himself in the foot. A little. I can 
understand. Simon notes that CF researchers, having been rejected and 
isolated as fringe or worse for so many years, generally became more 
tolerant of the extreme fringe. To some degree, the effect is good. 
Extreme fringe should never be *completely* off the table, just 
channeled to a corner where it can be discussed on a small scale 
until and unless something more reliable is found. This all has to do 
with how collective intelligence functions, when it's functional.


 I have suspected such a connection since learning the rare earth 
metal calcium is a porous powder which the body uses to build bone 
structure. I can only speculate at some natural process or disease 
that builds or leaches away to form pores of Casimir geometry in a 
biological equivalent of creating skeletal catalysts (no pun 
intended). Something out of the ordinary might be needed to 
encourage the ambient gas in these pores to become monatomic but 
the possible connection to excess heat is an intriguing clue.

Fran


There is a paper out there, so to speak, by Solomon Goldfein: Energy 
Development From Elemental Transmutations In Biological Systems, 
http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm


As I investigated the field of cold fusion for Wikipedia, I came 
across the Biological transmutation article, and, as well, the work 
of Vyosotskii. When I first looked at the Goldfein article, I was 
immediately put off by the reference to ATP as a cyclotron. Now, 
rereading the paper recently, I saw that what he claimed might be 
more plausible than my knee-jerk reaction would allow. It still seems 
ridiculous, because what confines the electrons to the ATP chain once 
they reach sufficient energy to break free?


Rather, Goldfein's theory is built on sand, insufficient confirmed 
anecdotal experimental evidence. That foundation must be solid for a 
radical theory, overturning more than a century of assumptions, to 
gain traction. There is a place for very raw speculation, but it's 
not in widespread discourse, it is in the locale for 
back-of-the-envelope or napkin sketches or calculations: in 
private work or in very small-scale discussions where brainstorming 
is de rigeur, where there is rapport; such discussions can cut 
through the rigid assumptions that are necessary for routine life, 
but which confine and restrict at the same time.


If someone wants to work on biological transformation, and thinks 
that there is a reproducible experiment out there, nail down an 
experimental design, I'd be very interested, if it's cheap to do. If 
it's not cheap, you'd have to convince someone weightier than I. What 
I like about Vyosotskii is that it's possible for the work with 
deinococcus radiodurans to be done cheaply, the only really difficult 
part is the Mossbauer spectroscopy, assuming Voysotskii's culture 
wasn't unique, and it's possible that a market could be sufficient to 
justify hiring the services or building an adequate, special-purpose, 
spectrograph. Perhaps if someone meets Vyosotskii, or has good 
communication with him, he can be asked about how to obtain the 
culture. I'd definitely be interested in establishing a line and 
making it available

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

This one is more entertaining:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3QdxvprkENR=1

Coins are intentionally made from non-magnetic material (except for
the 1943 penny, can you guess why?  NO GOOGLING)

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 This would be true even if the video
 turns out to be some kind of hoax.

 And hoax it is.  Every kid in the world has licked a spoon and have it
 adhere to his nose.  Note when the dude puts the (clean) ashtray on
 his forehead, he tilts his head back knowing exactly which angle at
 which the glass adheres to the skin.

 Try it yourself; but, you have to clean the oil off your skin for it to work.

 Terry

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)


At 10:27 AM 10/1/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Really, did Storms (2007) actually have to mention spontaneous
human combustion? It was speculation upon speculation. (p. 142.) He
does have much more reason to discuss Mills, and he does it in
quite some depth. For some unknown reason, the more extensive
discussion (p. 184-186) is missing from the index; he actually
gives much more ink to Mills than to any other proposed explanations.


I think spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is worthy of consideration
in relation to cold fusion because (a) there is solid evidence it
exists and (b) it may provide clues as to how to achieve a robust
free or nuclear energy process in a chemical environment.


What I don't see is any evidence *at all* that a nuclear effect is 
operating with SHC, even if I were to accept that there is solid 
evidence it exists. What's it? That's one of the problems with 
anecdotal evidence. I don't believe cold fusion is real because of 
occasional meltdowns. Those are adequate to convince those who 
witnessed them and those inclined to believe those reports, but not 
to rule out and eliminate that routine cause of a great deal of our 
experience: Unexplained.


Unexplained never proves any explanation.


 This has
been discussed in this forum in past years. A summary of my comments
here is provided at:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SHC.pdf


I'm like most people, indeed most people are like most people, by 
definition! If the first paragraphs of a document don't lead me 
somewhere I want to go, if they don't establish rapport, I'm not 
likely to read the rest unless some agenda takes me to it.


SHC isn't simple wicking, that's obvious; if it were, exposing the 
body to enough heat, any part of it, would then cause combustion of 
the whole. Some unusual precondition would have to exist; therefore 
the experiment with a large ham would normally fail and it would 
mean nothing about SHC.


Quite simply, as far as I can see, we don't know nearly enough about 
SHC to even develop a theory. The reports are all over the map. 
*Some* reports have *some* consistencies. So far, there isn't enough 
basis for the scientific method to operate on theories, not even the 
theory that SHC exists other than as a rough classification of a set 
of phenomena, much less a theory that NAE is involved.


But, hey, this is Vortex-L. I didn't see, in that paper, any reason 
why I should personally look into SHC, nothing where I could expect 
anything but a large set of dead ends, mystery upon mystery. I like 
my mysteries in small packages, not large unorganized ones. Except, 
of course, for the mystery of mysteries: consciousness. Descartes was 
wrong: that I think does not prove that I exist, the more accurate 
observation is Thinking, therefore thinking exists. There are 
mysteries that I do not expect to be resolved and understood, ever.

RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)


 [Snip] point 3 
3) A pre-exisiting genetic factor that is little known - and would be
involved with the LENR or hot hydrogen process itself, after combustion
initiation by mundane effects, and which could be a factor similar to what
is seen in this video, of a family that has unusual magnetic bio-fields:
[end snip]

Jones,
I agree with your points 1 and 2 but disagree with your timing 
mentioned in point 3 ' after combustion initiation by mundane effects '
You know I endorse relativistic hydrogen vs the hydrino to avoid sub ground 
state and explain the non radiative nature of the hydrino but regardless of 
which view you take there is no need for combustion to create heat. Bonds are 
restored to monatomic energy levels by the nature of the Casimir cavity in all 
of these theories (Mills, Haisch, Heffner and my own). I would interpret the 
SHC as the mundane combustion following the loading and acceleration of 
monatomic ambient gases in the porous cavities of human bone. I think the SHC 
is similar to the Japanese results with hydrogen gas diffused and allowed to 
soak in Pd nano materials.
Best Regards
Fran



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner 

I think spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is worthy of consideration  
in relation to cold fusion because (a) there is solid evidence it  
exists and (b) it may provide clues as to how to achieve a robust  
free or nuclear energy process in a chemical environment. This has  
been discussed in this forum in past years. A summary of my comments  
here is provided at:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SHC.pdf


Yes, we have tossed around some wild ideas in the past.

This piece is a good and relatively non-controversial statement of a
controversial situation - since it might portend or suggest the LENR factor.
If the range of possible explanations and contributing factors were to be
made more complete - then it could also mention several other details:

1) Bifurcation from the mundane initiator - The interconnection (in many
of the cases) with cigarettes, alcohol, obesity and season (usually winter).
These would only explain the initiation of the phenomenon, and the
starved-flame scenario which should then be self-quenching, or else
consume the entire residence. Since that does not happen, we must move on to
step two, which could then relate to LENR, or to 

2) The hydrino, hot hydrogen (Langmuir) or alternative fractional-hydrogen
explanation. Either or which can very likely depend on:

3) A pre-exisiting genetic factor that is little known - and would be
involved with the LENR or hot hydrogen process itself, after combustion
initiation by mundane effects, and which could be a factor similar to what
is seen in this video, of a family that has unusual magnetic bio-fields:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADlT9FALOs

Note: the last is NOT offered as a partial explanation for SHC itself - but
only shows that there could be a hidden genetic factor in the accumulation
of certain kinds of metal, in this case with strong external fields - and
that this genetic factor itself is responsible for the SHC effect following
initiation, but has yet to be isolated. This would be true even if the video
turns out to be some kind of hoax.

For instance, if there were found real evidence (transmutation isotopes), in
the analysis of the ash of SHC - or tritium for instance - to suggest a
valid LENR connection, then a genetic trait which might contribute to that
would be a propensity for the tissues (or bone surfaces, most likely) of the
victim to accumulate an active metal or catalytic alloy - not palladium,
since it is rare, but possible an alloy of nickel perhaps with lithium or
boron. Plus we suspect that tobacco is an accumulator of radionuclides.
Tobacco abuse is often seen in SHC victims.

http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/

It is all fascinating, and if you look closely at only the mundane
explanation, it only gets you as far as the combustion initiator, and
possibly the source of some of the radioactivity - but not to the complete
anomaly and unusual reaction, so to speak, which notably does not spread
beyond the victim.

Then - moving a little further afield, there is the idea of a troubled
soul, but let's not go there. We are already over the top of most BS
alarms (including my own).

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

I may want to retract my ref to Heffners' and Haischs' theory below - I believe 
their version may only require the cavity translation and is independent of 
bonding.
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

 [Snip] point 3 
3) A pre-exisiting genetic factor that is little known - and would be
involved with the LENR or hot hydrogen process itself, after combustion
initiation by mundane effects, and which could be a factor similar to what
is seen in this video, of a family that has unusual magnetic bio-fields:
[end snip]

Jones,
I agree with your points 1 and 2 but disagree with your timing 
mentioned in point 3 ' after combustion initiation by mundane effects '
You know I endorse relativistic hydrogen vs the hydrino to avoid sub ground 
state and explain the non radiative nature of the hydrino but regardless of 
which view you take there is no need for combustion to create heat. Bonds are 
restored to monatomic energy levels by the nature of the Casimir cavity in all 
of these theories (Mills, Haisch, Heffner and my own). I would interpret the 
SHC as the mundane combustion following the loading and acceleration of 
monatomic ambient gases in the porous cavities of human bone. I think the SHC 
is similar to the Japanese results with hydrogen gas diffused and allowed to 
soak in Pd nano materials.
Best Regards
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner 

I think spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is worthy of consideration  
in relation to cold fusion because (a) there is solid evidence it  
exists and (b) it may provide clues as to how to achieve a robust  
free or nuclear energy process in a chemical environment. This has  
been discussed in this forum in past years. A summary of my comments  
here is provided at:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SHC.pdf

Yes, we have tossed around some wild ideas in the past.

This piece is a good and relatively non-controversial statement of a
controversial situation - since it might portend or suggest the LENR factor.
If the range of possible explanations and contributing factors were to be
made more complete - then it could also mention several other details:

1) Bifurcation from the mundane initiator - The interconnection (in many
of the cases) with cigarettes, alcohol, obesity and season (usually winter).
These would only explain the initiation of the phenomenon, and the
starved-flame scenario which should then be self-quenching, or else
consume the entire residence. Since that does not happen, we must move on to
step two, which could then relate to LENR, or to 

2) The hydrino, hot hydrogen (Langmuir) or alternative fractional-hydrogen
explanation. Either or which can very likely depend on:

3) A pre-exisiting genetic factor that is little known - and would be
involved with the LENR or hot hydrogen process itself, after combustion
initiation by mundane effects, and which could be a factor similar to what
is seen in this video, of a family that has unusual magnetic bio-fields:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADlT9FALOs

Note: the last is NOT offered as a partial explanation for SHC itself - but
only shows that there could be a hidden genetic factor in the accumulation
of certain kinds of metal, in this case with strong external fields - and
that this genetic factor itself is responsible for the SHC effect following
initiation, but has yet to be isolated. This would be true even if the video
turns out to be some kind of hoax.

For instance, if there were found real evidence (transmutation isotopes), in
the analysis of the ash of SHC - or tritium for instance - to suggest a
valid LENR connection, then a genetic trait which might contribute to that
would be a propensity for the tissues (or bone surfaces, most likely) of the
victim to accumulate an active metal or catalytic alloy - not palladium,
since it is rare, but possible an alloy of nickel perhaps with lithium or
boron. Plus we suspect that tobacco is an accumulator of radionuclides.
Tobacco abuse is often seen in SHC victims.

http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/

It is all fascinating, and if you look closely at only the mundane
explanation, it only gets you as far as the combustion initiator, and
possibly the source of some of the radioactivity - but not to the complete
anomaly and unusual reaction, so to speak, which notably does not spread
beyond the victim.

Then - moving a little further afield, there is the idea of a troubled
soul, but let's not go there. We are already over the top of most BS
alarms (including my own).

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science


At 10:46 AM 10/1/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--On 12 June 2006 00:25:39 -0400 Jed Rothwell 
jedrothw...@mindspring.com wrote:



As long as the base format is Acrobat text, the document will work
with our system.


Fine!  So start with the abstract in that format, and include the 
rest of the paper, as scanned, as if it were graphics.  Problem solved! Next?


Brian


Brian, unfortunately, didn't get it, why his solution was utterly 
inadequate. Given that it appears that, for at least some of the 
papers, searchable text PDF already exists (I pointed to the archive 
on newenergytimes.com), the essential barrier would be lack of 
explicit permission to host those papers in that format.


An alternative would have been for the text to be converted to a file 
as he proposed, and then for Schwartz would approve it. It seems 
Schwarz did suggest this was acceptable, but ... who was to do the 
substantial work? Jed could do it, if he were inclined. I could 
easily see, from the history, why he wasn't willing to do that on 
spec. He could put in a lot of work and get nothing, and it's not 
like he gains a great deal by having another paper to host. Sometimes 
he'll do the work, if he has time. Sometimes he doesn't have time, I'm sure.


The difficulty of this shows that something other than ordinary 
technological obstacles is at work. One factor that is obvious is 
ready assumption of bad faith; when something fails, it must be 
because the other side wants it to fail. In a situation like this, I 
try to focus on results, dealing with technological obstacles one at 
a time. At a certain point I would give up, when it has become clear 
to me that, if the other party wanted to resolve the problem, they 
have easy and ready means to do so. I won't jump through hoops beyond 
that point.


Schwarz could cut through this mess immediately: here, explicitly and 
plainly give Rothwell permission to reproduce the articles which 
exist as either PDF or iamge-over-text PDF (I can't tell which they 
are) on newenergytimes.com). Or explicitly give Rothwell permission 
to convert the hosted HTML text to PDF, submitting it for approval, 
assuming that the HTML isn't itself largely in image format. All of 
Rothwell's explanations make sense to me as to why he doesn't want to 
host pure image, or image-with-abstract-only, they make sense to me 
as a reader and user of the library, and they make sense to me as a 
host of content. And if you keep making the same CDs with the same 
CD-writer, they may still be unreadable with another specific one. I 
don't know about one out of three, but I do know that 
interoperability failure is common, and could thus happen several 
times in a row, even if more than one CD writer were used.


Someone else who would like to see Schwarz's papers hosted on 
lenr-canr.org could assist in the conversion. If I had anything like 
the time necessary, I might try it. But I don't.

RE: [Vo]: Interference by retrocausality - was Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

 JB: Hmmm ... this sounds like a case of attempted record skipping... g
Like Bill-Phil sez: Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one
today ...

 Just don't hook the output to the input Phil! Phil Conners!  Is that
you!?


Maybe Phil-ing a bit grounded, since there really is a skipping-record
somewhere close by. Speaking of Phil - Conner, Connors, Conners and assorted
Con-men, not to mention what is real? admixed with infinite loops ... I
ran across an expanded version of the 'Twins Paradox' the other day. 

That paradox was a rather boring version of time travel implications, as it
is or was commonly misunderstood by the past generations (requiring
lightspeed LOL) - 'til Hollywood intervened with the true Gospel. Nowadays,
TT gets entwined into the public consciousness and politics in so many
subliminal ways that we probably will not fully realize what is transpiring
for a few more years (7 to 11), when Ahnold, reborn, returns.

But if any of us vorticians do go back in time, to try to change things -
and many certainly appear to be prime candidates g ... then it will
undoubtedly be because you were sent ... even though you thought you took
the red pill. Even if the trip is only a Matrix memory in someone else's
timeline, your actions will be poised to cause or change a desired
historical event that supposedly later becomes the very reason you were
originally sent back (by the master programmer). With me so far?

This could relate to what is (programmed to be) the branching-off point
(BoP) for a new parallel universe. There are lots of these points but not
an infinite number. 9/11 was probably a BoP as was WWII, the JFK coup
d'état, etc. There is usually one or more strong player associated with
each BoP. A single BoP can spawn dozens of parallel timelines, if the master
programmer is not satisfied with what cannot be changed as a work in
progress. The BoP is really a place-marker deluxe.

TT would not be optional for some participants - it means key players, or
close disciples thereof, would be predestined to go back in time more than
once, in order to create self-consistent timeline loops, which are then a
chain of events known as the 'Predestination Paradox'. A version of this may
also explain why many of us feel that predestination is not incompatible
with free will From a different perspective, it is simply bad code, and
premature branching of the BoP can be the unplanned result- which is
merely a bug in the program, from another PoV.

This paradox is used in one of The Terminator iterations (the second
IIRC), where Ahnold as T2 is sent back from the future to protect Sarah
Conner, the mother of his comrade and savior of humanity John Conner from
a force that is not happy with that particular timeline, nor his previous
crushing experience in T1. It gets confusing because the actual
Terminator-character is in an identity-crisis as both the bad-boy, and/or
the hero - depending on which Judgment Day you subscribe to. Not unlike
theology. 

And the master programmer is probably not a single entity either, at least
this identity is not as predictable as 'perfection' should be. Or else we
humanoids do not understand perfection in any relevant way.

Anyway, T2 gets the lovely Sarah pregnant - and thus becomes John's father.
Once again. Therefore John is predestined to later send him back in time so
that he (John) can be born again and thus keep that portion of that
timeline self-consistent. You can see how this can be woven into all kinds
of mind-games, such as religious dogma. 

If the Guvernator had fired blanks with Sarah, so to speak, or if that
timeline bifurcates unexpectedly, due to someone else's (aka Satan)
intervention, like on 9/11, then the original is not necessarily altered in
its own continuity - but its potential to preferentially changed (for the
better or by the programmer's whim) becomes contingent on some other
player's (or programmers) intervention. John, and billions of others cease
to be vital agents of change. That universe (a metaphor for our universe)
can never be reinforced in continuity again by them, nor to progress in a
way that is desired by the master programmer ... thus explaining why there
is really no paradox at all, just lots of unpredictable code and overlapping
identities ... and plenty of outcomes that are in search of serendipitous
branching. 

Not unlike evolution itself... 

This is the real 'human condition' - most of us are resigned to being extras
in someone else's play (or program) - and are usually caught sadly
unprepared when the rare opportunity arises to alter our timeline in better
way ... but that was what the master programmer was trying to discover
anyway.

Got it? Do not nod off. The timeline that did not branch-off when Cheney
failed to take control as his mentor had planned, may now very well depend
on a hidden variable - like LENR or f/H - in order to save us from the
return of that

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

2009-10-01 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence



Terry Blanton wrote:
 This one is more entertaining:
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3QdxvprkENR=1
 
 Coins are intentionally made from non-magnetic material (except for
 the 1943 penny, can you guess why?  NO GOOGLING)

You're being provincial.

United States coins may very well be non-magnetic, but...

Note attached photo of a nickel and magnet.  (The beaver kind of gives
it away as a Canadian nickel, of course.)
inline: IMG_8627.cropped.jpg

[Vo]:How can we overlook Spontaneous Chicken Combusion (SCC)?



On Mar 11, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Frederick Sparber wrote:

In thread: Re: Idiopathic Thermogenesis, Electronium  Potassium-40?

Spontaneous Human Combustion,SHC.   Random K40 concentration?

SCC Spontaneous Chicken Combustion.   In Kervran's Chickens?

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/1-3/IT-final.html

This accumulation of radioactive isotopes within the cell serves  
as a basic component of radiogenic metabolism and, may also, be  
accelerated in times of stress or disease. When accompanied by  
increased free radical production, the chance for a positron- 
electron reaction multiplies. Similarly, documented ingestion of  
known radioactive materials, e.g., potassium supplements such as  
those taken by KF, will further increase the matter-antimatter  
potential and the likelihood of an intracellularly-mediated nuclear  
event (51).


In addition to the electron-positron mechanism to produce high- 
energy gamma radiation within the cells capable of producing a  
photodisintegration event, the K40 itself provides an abundant  
supply of gamma radiation. K40, the most commonly occurring  
radioactive source within the human body, represents two-thirds of  
our internal radiation. It is found intracellularly, predominantly,  
in the lean mass of human tissues. Each day, 0.12 uCi (micro  
Curies) of K40 in the average man emits 41 million gamma rays (1.46  
MeV), 300 million beta rays (.56 MeV), and 500 million delta rays  
(various energies). The biological half-life of K40 is 30 days (51).


K40 not only effects intracellular H2O but also comes into contact  
with intracellular D2O (deuterium oxide). Deuterium atoms are rare;  
sources differ in the natural abundance of deuterium, ranging from  
1 part in 4000 to 1 part in 7000 (1:4000 or 1:7000) with an average  
of approximately 1:6000. Subsequently, of all the water a person  
drinks, or comes in contact with, 1 drop in every 6000 drops will  
be a drop of heavy water (52). The photodisintegration of  
deuterium, releasing a proton and neutron, can be accomplished with  
as little as 2.225 MeV (calculated cross section). 




Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]: Interference by retrocausality - was Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Maybe Phil-ing a bit grounded, since there really is a skipping-record
 somewhere close by.

Well, you certainly hogged the bandwidth. :-)

I thought the branching was explained in m-brane multiverse theory.
With every free will choice the universe branches.

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:

 You're being provincial.

I should have said most coins, including the euros in the video.  If
they are magnetic, they are easy to lift (in more ways than one) as
your image indicates.  You sure that's a beaver?  Looks more like a
platypus, proof G-d has a sense of humor.

And the penny?

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)



On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


SHC isn't simple wicking, that's obvious; if it were, exposing the  
body to enough heat, any part of it, would then cause combustion of  
the whole. Some unusual precondition would have to exist; therefore  
the experiment with a large ham would normally fail and it would  
mean nothing about SHC.



It doesn't always fail, at least according to one poster here:

At 11:05 AM 6/21/99, Mitchell Jones wrote:


[snip]It must be emphasized that his is not mere theory, but
experimentally verified fact: a dead pig was placed on a carpet,  
with a
cigarette placed under the edge of the body, and the wicking effect  
did, in
fact, consume the almost all of the carcass, bones and all. Only  
the ends

of some of the legs were left. (If memory serves, the article I read
appeared in *Science News*.) --Mitchell Jones}***


However, such an experiment is not a replication of what happens in  
many well documented cases, which occurred very rapidly, and did not  
heavily involve other flammable material close by.   There is a book  
out on the subject that has various convincing photos, some from  
police investigations. Try googling Spontaneous Human Combustion.


More fun might be sorting out the real images from the fakes and  
rock band photos:


http://tinyurl.com/ycsfrzr

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

2009-10-01 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence



Terry Blanton wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
 
 You're being provincial.
 
 I should have said most coins, including the euros in the video.  If
 they are magnetic, they are easy to lift (in more ways than one) as
 your image indicates.  You sure that's a beaver?  Looks more like a
 platypus, proof G-d has a sense of humor.

Actually I think it might be a rat; it looks just like the one on the
MIT class ring's I've seen.


 And the penny?

Penny's dead as a hunk of wood.

Quarters are another story, tho.  :-)

inline: IMG_8630.cropped-scaled.jpg

[Vo]:Re: How can we overlook Spontaneous Chicken Combusion (SCC)?

On top of the possibility of a K40-D2O-gamma chain reaction, there is  
the possibility of an acoustic resonance induced cavitation  
augmentation of that reaction.  Cavitation, especially, multi-bubble  
cavitation seeded by gamma tracks,  could involve various elements in  
proton sonofusion, including iron.  See article by F. Cardone et al:


http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5115

Neutrons from Piezonuclear Reactions

We report the results obtained by cavitating water solutions of iron  
salts (iron chloride and iron nitrate) with different concentrations  
at different ultrasound powers. In all cases we detected a neutron  
radiation well higher than the background level. The neutron  
production is perfectly reproducible and can at some extent be  
controlled. These evidences for neutron emission generated by  
cavitation support some preliminary clues for the possibility of  
piezonuclear reactions (namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure  
and shock waves) obtained in the last ten years. We have been able  
for the first time to state some basic features of such a neutron  
emission induced by cavitation, namely: 1) a marked threshold  
behavior in power, energy and time; 2) its occurring without a  
concomitant production of gamma radiation.


At times vortex-l can be such a fun place. 8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:How can we overlook Spontaneous Chicken Combustion (SCC)?

Well, Fred is no doubt grinning like the Cheshire cat from some unknown
vantage point about that old post. 

Colonel Sanders too. Think of the time that could be saved.




-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner 

On Mar 11, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Frederick Sparber wrote:

In thread: Re: Idiopathic Thermogenesis, Electronium  Potassium-40?
Spontaneous Human Combustion,SHC.   Random K40 concentration?

 SCC Spontaneous Chicken Combustion.   In Kervran's Chickens?

 http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/1-3/IT-final.html

 This accumulation of radioactive isotopes within the cell serves  
 as a basic component of radiogenic metabolism and, may also, be  
 accelerated in times of stress or disease. When accompanied by  
 increased free radical production, the chance for a positron- 
 electron reaction multiplies. Similarly, documented ingestion of  
 known radioactive materials, e.g., potassium supplements such as  
 those taken by KF, will further increase the matter-antimatter  
 potential and the likelihood of an intracellularly-mediated nuclear  
 event (51).

 In addition to the electron-positron mechanism to produce high- 
 energy gamma radiation within the cells capable of producing a  
 photodisintegration event, the K40 itself provides an abundant  
 supply of gamma radiation. K40, the most commonly occurring  
 radioactive source within the human body, represents two-thirds of  
 our internal radiation. It is found intracellularly, predominantly,  
 in the lean mass of human tissues. Each day, 0.12 uCi (micro  
 Curies) of K40 in the average man emits 41 million gamma rays (1.46  
 MeV), 300 million beta rays (.56 MeV), and 500 million delta rays  
 (various energies). The biological half-life of K40 is 30 days (51).

 K40 not only effects intracellular H2O but also comes into contact  
 with intracellular D2O (deuterium oxide). Deuterium atoms are rare;  
 sources differ in the natural abundance of deuterium, ranging from  
 1 part in 4000 to 1 part in 7000 (1:4000 or 1:7000) with an average  
 of approximately 1:6000. Subsequently, of all the water a person  
 drinks, or comes in contact with, 1 drop in every 6000 drops will  
 be a drop of heavy water (52). The photodisintegration of  
 deuterium, releasing a proton and neutron, can be accomplished with  
 as little as 2.225 MeV (calculated cross section). 


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Fine!  So start with the abstract in that format, and include the 
rest of the paper, as scanned, as if it were graphics.  Problem solved! Next?


Brian


Brian, unfortunately, didn't get it, why his solution was utterly 
inadequate.


He got it as soon as I explained. I gave him the list of 7 reasons 
and he immediately agreed.


People who have not worked with web pages, technical documentation, 
machine translation, braille readers and whatnot are not likely to 
know this stuff. I have been involved with such things for a long 
time, and I have distributed millions of papers, so I know what's 
needed. It is technical minutia, but done right it can enhance the 
web page and help the readers.



Given that it appears that, for at least some of the papers, 
searchable text PDF already exists (I pointed to the archive on 
newenergytimes.com), the essential barrier would be lack of explicit 
permission to host those papers in that format.


An alternative would have been for the text to be converted to a 
file as he proposed, and then for Schwartz would approve it. It 
seems Schwarz did suggest this was acceptable, but ... who was to do 
the substantial work?


No. Swartz adamantly -- nay VOCIFEROUSLY -- opposed the use of text 
Acrobat. He insisted that his papers be uploaded in image Acrobat 
only. I have no earthly idea why he makes this demand. I don't recall 
that he ever gave a reason. You would have to ask him.




Jed could do it, if he were inclined.


I offered. He refused. Refused hardly describes it. He went 
ballistic and told me there would be dire consequences if I lifted a 
finger to convert his papers to this format! God only knows why. 
Frankly, I don't care why.


His opposition to this format is even more mind-boggling in view of 
the fact that he uploaded his own papers in text HTML. This whole 
exchange now seems even more inexplicable and ludicrous.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 

I think the SHC is similar to the Japanese results with hydrogen gas
diffused and allowed to soak in Pd nano materials.


Best Regards
Fran


YES ! Arata Zhang. Works for me!

Heat and transmutation products found, based mostly on geometry, since
results were seen without Pd !

Hey, there was even a medical article about nano bone being used for
healing broken bones, so there is a good side and bad side to it.

Re: correction /Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:20:00 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
 The 'positive' in between is what makes the equations work out. I 
 think you
 are having a problem because you expect the net EMF to integrate to 
 zero (begin
 point = end point), which it would do if you take the step into 
 account. Note
 that the EMF does not change monotonically around the complete 
 loop. It does
 along the wire (assuming a constant resistance/length ratio), 
 however there is
 at least one step when you hit the electrodes. (In the case of a 
 battery perhaps
 more accurately one step at each electrode).
 Regards,
 
 Robin van Spaandonk
 
 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
 

Explaining the steady current in terms of EMFs does not lead to a
contradiction
so this is not where my problem lies. However, if the steady current is
rigorously explained in terms of electric fields a contradiction seems
to arise. 

How is EMF different from electric field? IOW why do not have a problem with
the former, but you do with the latter?

The steady current requires that the electric field lines
around the loop (i.e. from '-' to '-') form a closed path, otherwise the
current would be  fleeting instead of steady. 
On the other hand this
contradicts the rule that electric fields cannot form a closed loop when
the B field is not varying as is the case with a *steady* current.

...but individual field lines don't form a closed loop. They end on positive and
negative charges in between. That's what the discontinuity is all about that I
mentioned in my previous post. It's where the voltage step happens.

This is most clearly seen where the separator is a capacitor, and no current
flows through the dielectric of the capacitor. All you really have is a bent
wire connection with two ends. Current flows from one end to the other.

This is also true in a battery, but the break isn't as obvious as it's at the
atomic level, where electrons and ions separate. Actually there are more like
two breaks in a battery, one at each electrode, resulting in two currents, an
external electron current, and an internal ion current.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

In retrospect, I think the title of this thread is an exaggeration. A 
regrettable overstatement. Swartz is not actually running an 
extortion racket. What he does is to use the legal system to bully, 
intimidate and silence people who disagree with him or criticize his 
work. I know he does this because he tried to do it to me. I do not 
recall the content of his letters, because I tore them up and threw 
them away immediately. Then I called Gene and yelled and carried on, 
something I seldom do. (Poor Gene! He was the virtual Rabbi of cold 
fusion, burdened by everyone's grief and complaints, always trying to 
make peace.)


The letter was something to the effect of cease and desist or you 
will be sued etc. You can see a similar threat in the archives here, 
when he went nuts after I uploaded the abstract from his paper. There 
is no doubt in my mind he was trying to intimidate me.


Swartz has been involved in lawsuit after lawsuit fighting with the 
government, and evidently with his critics as well. Gene warned me 
that Swartz will go on and on, with legal motions and demands, until 
his critics are worn out and agree to shut up. One of his victims 
called me and said it isn't worth it; he'll keep coming at you time 
after time with legal motions and threats of lawsuits, on and on, 
just leave him alone. I was told that some of these people finally 
settled with some sort of agreement and I think they mentioned a 
payment to cover legal expenses but I do not know how much. The 
agreement precluded them telling me who they were or what the issues were.


This happened soon after Gene and I were pestered by another 
scientist, named Santilli, with lawsuits and challenges that cost 
tens of thousands of dollars to defend against. Gene had to go to 
court several times. It was a nightmare for a while. Santilli forced 
Gene to spend thousands of dollars at a time when Gene was broke and 
in serious trouble. The court finally threw the case out. After that 
experience you can see why he wanted me to keep quiet and not trigger 
the same kind of nonsense from Swartz. Plus, he felt that Swartz was 
doing important work, and we should support him as much as possible 
and not make more trouble for him or with him. I cannot judge the 
quality of his work.


Calling this extortion is too much. His actions were not criminal. 
They were unethical, unseemly and infuriating, but not illegal. After 
all, anyone is free to file a lawsuit. I don't think he actually 
filed one against me, he just threatened to. Which -- let's face it 
-- is like waving the proverbial red flag at a bull. A dumb thing for 
him to do!


It was a long time ago, and it was upsetting, and I prefer not to 
think about upsetting memories. If I were to dwell on all the nasty 
things people have said to me in the cold fusion business, I would be 
miserable. I am NOT miserable. I am happy as a clam, and I intend to 
stay that way.


Anyway, even though it was years ago, I am glad I discussed this 
nonsense here because otherwise these weird exchanges between us will 
make the readers here think I have lost my mind. You must have been 
thinking: Why would Jed make such an issue about copying a paper from 
one web page to another?!? What difference does it make? And then 
there was this exchange, when I wrote:


If I see you have erased them from your site I will erase them from 
LENR-CANR faster than you can say knife, so don't try that cute 
little trick either.


That sounds crazy until you know the backstory. As you have seen 
here, Swartz accuses me of secretly changing text and editing papers 
without permission, so I must insist that he keep an authorized copy 
of any paper on his web site to prove that my copy is verbatim.


Needless to say, Swartz and I have been through all these arguments 
by private e-mail time after time. Many other people have seen 
copies. I made sure of that. He knows exactly why I insist that he 
upload first to his web page and leave the copy there. And I know for 
darn sure he intends to take it down and then accuse me of stealing 
or editing.


This is all stuff and nonsense, but as Gene found with Santilli, it 
can become expensive nonsense.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:30:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The transmutation of 
radioactive waste, which is what his latest work has been about, is 
not so easy a topic for home LENR kits, unless one happens to have 
some nuclear waste lying about. Fun for the kids?
[snip]
..actually many people do. It's the Am241 in many smoke detectors.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

Regarding the question of whether this topic is appropriate for 
papers at LENR-CANR.org, let me explain how I decide.


1. Stage one, I decide SHC is off topic and perhaps it would cause 
unwanted political or public relations repercussions, so I have not 
tried to get any papers on it.


No other stages have happened in this case but if they did, they 
might go like this:


2. Someone submits a papers on SHC. I reconsider, and ask Ed what he thinks.

3. If we decide it is still off topic we ask the author to go 
elsewhere. I expect there are many web sites about SHC, so this 
shouldn't be a problem. Google will readily find the paper no matter 
where it ends up. (Roberto Monti did not seem to mind  when I told 
him we think it is off topic. He is a nice fellow and we get along fine.)


4. Several cold fusion researchers write to say we think SHC is real 
and related to cold fusion, so we think you should have papers on it. 
If that happens I say sure, fine, and upload whatever they suggest.


In other words, I have no strong feelings about the content and no 
burning desire to exclude anything. I like to keep things in neatly 
arranged categories. Nature, of course, does not recognize 
categories, such as the distinction between chemistry and physics.


It is conceivable that SHC is related to cold fusion. If evidence for 
that arises of course I would include reports of it.


Along the same lines, if the researchers and theorists come to think 
that the Mills effect is real and related to cold fusion, naturally I 
would take papers on that. Whatever the authors and readers want is 
usually okay with me.


I know in detail which papers are popular, and which papers readers 
think are important. I can see how many copies of each paper are 
downloaded, and which papers are linked to by other web sites. The 
web page log files tell me this sort of thing in detail. I try to 
upload more of whatever it is people are reading, just as a 
bricks-and-mortar librarian would try to stock whatever books readers 
often check out. It is not up to me to dictate to the readers what 
they find interesting. A large fraction of our readers are 
professional scientists and they know what they want.


Web page log files are described here:

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/logs.html

- Jed

[Vo]:Important info about the Swine Flu Vaccine

2009-10-01 Thread John Berry

Previously I posted on the H1N1 vaccine, I didn't have the time then to
reply to criticism, but here finally is my opinion on it.

17 Reasons not to take the Swine Flu (H1N1) vaccine.

1. The Swine flu vaccine contains 60,000 times more of the adjuvant Squalene
than was given in the vaccinations that caused the gulf war syndrome,
Squalene has been proven in animal studies to cause the exact same
autoimmune dysfunction. The version of the h1N1 vaccine made for testing
contains no Squalene.

*Let me say that again, the most dangerous components of the vaccine are
being left out of the safety test! *
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/injecting.html
For more info on Squalene see below this list. Squalene is not FDA Approved
for use in vaccines.

2. *Everyone thinks it is dangerious*: In polls 51% of the public considers
the H1N1 vaccine a greater threat than Swine flu with a further 19% unsure
which is worst. 50%-60% of doctors won't take it, 35% of nurses won't take
it, and even scientists who developed the Polio vaccine won't take it and
are urging their friends and family not to.
In the UK the government sent a memo to senior neurologists to be alert for
an increase of Guillain-Barre Syndrome following the H1N1 vaccine, no wonder
Doctors don't want to take it. GSK includes GBS as a possible result of
taking their swine flu vaccine.

2.b In 1976 a similar swine flu scare caused a swine flu vaccine to be
produced however after causing rates of Guillain-Barré Syndrome to skyrocket
it was stopped, there are 300 claims now pending from the families of GBS
[Guillain-Barre Syndrome] victims who died.

Even the WHO has admitted the vaccine may be dangerous.

3. *It contains 25,000 times more mercury than is considered safe* but in
the form of thymerisol it is already 50 times more toxic than straight
mercury due to it's availability. Causes Autism:
http://theholisticoption.com/Pages/Article_Study_Proves_Link_Between_Thimerosal_Mercury_in_Vaccines
_and_Autism_404.aspx

4. *Swine Flu (H1N1) has not mutated as was feared* as the WHO admits and is
now considered to be no more or even less deadly than the normal seasonal
flu, it was initially reported that there were 159 H1N1 deaths in Mexico but
the WHO said that there had really only been 7 H1N1 deaths in Mexico at that
point. As with the normal seasonal flu it has only killed those who already
had other life threatening conditions.
Note: Flu's have always tended to become less virulent not more.

6. *The majority of the vaccine is in multiuse vials which have caused
people to be infected with HIV* in Australia, hepetitis and bacterial
diseases.

7. *An illegal test of a bird flu vaccine in Poland of 350 homeless people
killed 21 of them and the doctors and nurses are on trial for murder.*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/2235676/Homeless-people-die-after-bird-flu-vaccine-trial-in-Poland.html
Vaccines can be very deadly!

8.*Baxter's facility in Austria produced a 2009 seasonal flu vaccine that
was contaminated with 158lb (weight of a person!) of H5N1 live bird flu
virus classified as a bioweapon* which must be secure and separate from all
other substances under stringent biosecurity level regulations, it was only
found when against standard procedure a Czech lab tested the vaccine on
Ferrits quickly killing them all preventing a pandemic or did it?.
*There are no records that this vaccine was destroyed!*

9.You can't trust pharmaceutical companies to care about your safety, while
opinion of pharmaceutical companies is already generally low it should
concern you that regulations have been passed to shield vaccine manufactures
against any and all claims.
An example of how they will happily send thousands to their death for money
and not be prosecuted: *Bayer had a product they knew was contaminated with
HIV so they just sold it overseas instead killing thousands of haemophiliacs
*.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.phphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhshttp://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php
Baxter did much the same.

10.Vaccines contain fillers, including: aluminum hydroxide, aluminum
phosphate, ammonium sulfate, amphotericin B, animal tissues: pig blood,
horse blood, rabbit brain, dog kidney, monkey kidney, chick embryo, chicken
egg, duck egg, calf (bovine) serum, betapropiolactone, fetal bovine serum,
formaldehyde, formalin, glycerol, human diploid cells (originating from *HUMAN
ABORTED FEATAL TISSUE*), hydrolized gelatin, monosodium glutamate (MSG),
neomycin sulfate, phenol red indicator, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze),
potassium diphosphate, potassium monophosphate, polymyxin B, polysorbate 20,
polysorbate 80, porcine (pig) pancreatic, hydrolysate of casein, residual
MRC5 proteins, sorbitol, sucrose, thimerosal (mercury),
tri(n)butylphosphate, VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells,
washed sheep red blood cells, Spermiscide. (causing birth defects) Human
mucous and hair is also

Re: [Vo]:Important info about the Swine Flu Vaccine

2009-10-01 Thread Esa Ruoho

dont also forget that its called HONE-NONE.

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote:

Previously I posted on the H1N1 vaccine, I didn't have the time then to
reply to criticism, but here finally is my opinion on it.

17 Reasons not to take the Swine Flu (H1N1) vaccine.

1. The Swine flu vaccine contains 60,000 times more of the adjuvant
Squalene than was given in the vaccinations that caused the gulf war
syndrome, Squalene has been proven in animal studies to cause the exact same
autoimmune dysfunction. The version of the h1N1 vaccine made for testing
contains no Squalene.

2. *Everyone thinks it is dangerious*: In polls 51% of the public
considers the H1N1 vaccine a greater threat than Swine flu with a further
19% unsure which is worst. 50%-60% of doctors won't take it, 35% of nurses
won't take it, and even scientists who developed the Polio vaccine won't
take it and are urging their friends and family not to.
In the UK the government sent a memo to senior neurologists to be alert for
an increase of Guillain-Barre Syndrome following the H1N1 vaccine, no wonder
Doctors don't want to take it. GSK includes GBS as a possible result of
taking their swine flu vaccine.

Even the WHO has admitted the vaccine may be dangerous.

4. *Swine Flu (H1N1) has not mutated as was feared* as the WHO admits and
is now considered to be no more or even less deadly than the normal seasonal
flu, it was initially reported that there were 159 H1N1 deaths in Mexico but
the WHO said that there had really only been 7 H1N1 deaths in Mexico at that
point. As with the normal seasonal flu it has only killed those who already
had other life threatening conditions.
Note: Flu's have always tended to become less virulent not more.

6. *The majority of the vaccine is in multiuse vials which have caused
people to be infected with HIV* in Australia, hepetitis and bacterial
diseases.

8.*Baxter's facility in Austria produced a 2009 seasonal flu vaccine that
was contaminated with 158lb (weight of a person!) of H5N1 live bird flu
virus classified as a bioweapon* which must be secure and separate from
all other substances under stringent biosecurity level regulations, it was
only found when against standard procedure a Czech lab tested the vaccine on
Ferrits quickly killing them all preventing a pandemic or did it?.
*There are no records that this vaccine was destroyed!*

9.You can't trust pharmaceutical companies to care about your safety, while
opinion of pharmaceutical companies is already generally low it should
concern you that regulations have been passed to shield vaccine manufactures
against any and all claims.
An example of how they will happily send thousands to their death for money
and not be prosecuted: *Bayer had a product they knew was contaminated
with HIV so they just sold it overseas instead killing thousands of
haemophiliacs*.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.phphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhshttp://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php
Baxter did much the same.

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)



On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



4. Several cold fusion researchers write to say we think SHC is  
real and related to cold fusion, so we think you should have papers  
on it. If that happens I say sure, fine, and upload whatever they  
suggest.



My two cents is that SHC should be off topic for LENR-CANR.org.  Too  
damagingly controversial. Obviously, it is anomalous science and on  
topic for vortex-l though. Beyond that, I think it is worthy of  
consideration as food for thought in designing amateur experiments.   
Any *robust* energy anomaly is worthy of examination.  That is the  
second most important feature free energy experiments seem to lack,  
after repeatability, robustness.


What could be more up an amateur mad scientist's alley!  Throw random  
ingredients into an acoustically/electrically/photonically stimulated  
liquid filled vessel and look for transmutation, radioactivity or  
massive excess heat.





On May 14, 2009, at 11:32 AM, William Beaty wrote:


Right now at Harbor Freight Tools they're selling a handheld  
ultrasonic

stain cleaner the size of a dremel tool.

These contain a big paired piezo transducer running at 55KHz  
bolted to a
steel horn. All for ten dollars clearance sale! (down from $25)   
This

price was at their retail store, not online.

 http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf? 
Itemnumber=96474


The transducer in the above device is a fairly huge thing, like a  
tiny

version of an ultrasonic welder.  Not for kids, it probably delivers
internal burns.  I've seen similar transducers sold on eBay for  
$50. The
driver board has 3.3V logic and 6V mosfets, probably easy to pulse  
it and
crank it up to much higher power.  I'm currently drawing up a  
schematic.


Drops of water placed on the steel tip will spray out as mist.  If  
swept
slowly over a polyethelene bag, it welds the sheets together (but  
a crappy
weld, pops apart again if tugged.)  If the tip is submerged in  
water about

5mm away from a surface, loud random screech of cavitation is heard.

Also...

For nebulizing water, those mist fountain or ultrasonic  
humidifier
devices can be found online for under $30.  They run at much  
higher power

than the above device, but run at 1MHz or so.




(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )) 
)

William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci  
fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird  
sci





I ordered one of the stain cleaners, even though they look to be  
wimpy, run by 4 1.5 V batteries.  I have some giant (about 4  
diameter) cylindrical sonar transducers, which consist of about a 1  
cm thick cylinder of yellow material sandwiched between cylindrical  
layers of foil, if I recall correctly.  They have been buried in  
boxes of oddball equipment for years. From the attached leads it  
looks like maybe they are designed to be stimulated by 1 kV or more.   
Strange the sound is focused inward to a line, which would even be  
better than a spot for muti-bubble sonoluminescence.  I'm not sure  
what kind of thing should drive these transducers with though.
Might be cool to drive one with a 60 neo magnet 20,000 rpm magneto -  
powered with steam from highly stimulated boiling soup.   Chicken  
soup that is, of course.  8^)



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:megolith levitation

2009-10-01 Thread Frank Roarty

Has Vortex previously considered cavitation of ambient gases in limestone
and other calcium based megaliths? Numerous cultures have common legends of
levitating great stones and I would be interested if they share rare earth
metal ingredients like calcium.

Just wondering...

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion


At 06:35 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote:

In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:30:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The transmutation of
radioactive waste, which is what his latest work has been about, is
not so easy a topic for home LENR kits, unless one happens to have
some nuclear waste lying about. Fun for the kids?
[snip]
..actually many people do. It's the Am241 in many smoke detectors.


Thanks for reminding me. Now, how to use this? Maybe I need to reread 
Vyosotskii.

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:

Jed and others on vortex have had permission for quite a long time.


That's ambivalent. Jed and others is not clear, and what exactly is it we
have permission to do?

This is the sort of vague statement that got me in trouble the first time.
Swartz sorta maybe kinda gives permission to quote him or upload something,
maybe it is permission for you or maybe someone else . . . then when you do
it, wham! -- he nails you with a letter threatening a lawsuit. I fell for
that trick already.

If Swartz wants to end this dispute, he will clearly and unambiguously say
who he is talking about, and what permission he is granting. Something along
these lines:


I hereby grant permission to Jed Rothwell to copy my paper now on-line at
http:x, and to upload a copy to the library at LENR-CANR.org in text
Acrobat format.

If he wants he can add conditions such as: the text must be verbatim and I
reserve the right to withdraw it at any time. These conditions are a given,
in any case.


I will not copy anything until I see permission expressed as unambiguous as
that. Also, if I ever find the original copy of the document is gone, I will
delete the LENR-CANR version immediately.

As I have said, I have no desire to upload any of his work. So if he never
clearly grants permission that's fine with me.

I don't care how many times he repeats this hogwash about censorship or
CD-ROMs. I have ignored that stuff for years, just as I ignore Steve Jones
and his magical recombination. But I will not put up with intimidation,
ever, and I will not sweep his manipulations, threats and vile behavior
under the rug again. As I said, if he sends me any more e-mail or snail-mail
intimidation, I will post it everywhere.


Lomax wrote:

Jed, I imagine you would know this, but I'll repeat it. According to my
understanding, if you are not profiting from publication, and you have
reasonable evidence of permission, the most that a copyright holder could do
is to demand that you take the material down.

I expect that is true, but that is not how nuisance lawsuits work. The
purpose is not to win but to intimidate and silence the person. There is
little chance that a case filed by Swartz would go to court, and if it did I
would never lose, but just fighting it off would be a pain in the butt and a
major expense.

Santilli never had valid case, or even a sane case, or any hope of winning.
He made wild accusations that Gene had stolen this or copied that. He never
met or talked to me, and I knew nothing about him, but he filed charges
against me and several others. He got a list of Gene's friends and
associates and had legal motions served on them. Gene's friends would call
him in a panic asking: 'Who is this guy? What is this million dollar lawsuit
claim against me?' (or however much it was). When judges would get around to
examining his motions they would say he was crazy (literally) and dismiss
them. Yet Santilli's legal shenanigans cost Gene tens of thousands of
dollars and trouble before Gene finally got the man off his back. And it was
far too much trouble counter-sue him for expenses.

These people use the legal system to pursue their private vendettas.
Imaginary vendettas in this case. It is an abuse of the legal system.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:15:07 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
I hereby grant permission to Jed Rothwell to copy my paper now on-line at
http:x, and to upload a copy to the library at LENR-CANR.org in text
Acrobat format.

Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted on his own website, then all
you need on LENR-CANR.org is a URL pointing to it iso to your own web site. It
wouldn't matter in the slightest to the rest of the world where the actual
document resides. That way he retains complete editorial control, and the
library (and it's users) benefit from the paper(s). In fact there may also be
others who would prefer a similar arrangement. If he wishes to withdraw the
paper then the only consequence for the library would be a broken URL -
insignificant.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Infinite Energey article using hydrino to eliminate nuclear waste