[Vo]:Open-Source-LENR-reactor
post #0 guys (no girls here. MEN are ruining the world, so they should be made responsible to do something god. But fun aside.) I'm trying to start a thread concentrating on the construction of an Open-Source-LENR-reactor. The aim is to build a demonstration reactor, or at least collect relevant data and methods, for what has to be done. This seems to be a step back wrt to hoping that Rossi or DGT or whoever will do the magic of offering a commercial device soon, which does not have exactly zero probability, but is also not -to my opinion- above the 50%-level. As Jed remarked, there is still a considerable -unresolved- safety-issue. The arguments, which have been brought up, that practice trumps theory, have some charm, but do not hold upon further scrutiny. Devices applied in the multimillions have to be inherently safe, and I cannot imagine that a device that delivers considerable power, can go into practice without a generally accepted theory of how the device works. So this is a multistep-process. Eg UL would be ill-advised to test an e-cat in a black-box-manner and declare it inherently save, if in the inside is something which eventually could explode in 1 ppm of cases. Rossi as often, when riding his 'white horse' is too optimistic on that. (if he ever has a point) (the one institution which is not bothered by that, is the military. So there is a good argument for the suspicion, that -if any- a military organization is his customer, and not the broad public.) -- To summarize: The idea would be, to conceptualize a reactor ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN, which can be readily reproduced by anybody willing to spend say 10k$. This would scale down a bit by division of labor. (Btw, the raspberry computer is a good recent example for the power of rightly funneled open-source. Compare this with the repeated failures of the OLPC/MIT/Negroponte initiative, which simply missed the point. Negroponte seems to be a slow learner.) - In post#1 I try to distill some relevant points from Brian Ahern's design. Comments+additions+criticisms of course are very welcome. But please, can we concentrate in this thread on relevant criticism, material choices, methods choices, relevant theory-bits . So lets start. All the best Guenter
Re: [Vo]:March 22, 23
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote: I agree that it needs to be relatively safe if you are going to sell it, but you don't need a theory to prove it is safe. I expect a theory would improve both safety and performance, and help lower costs. If he really has a device that can produce power at commercial levels, I don't want to see time wasted on explaining the theory of how the reaction works before he can sell it. The time would not be wasted. We need to exhaustive testing anyway. The efforts should be made by thousands of people in parallel so that they do not take much time. This will speed up the introduction of the technology in a wide range of applications. In the end, it is faster and cheaper to do intense RD first, rather than after you introduce the product. Just as some others have said, we used fire for thousands of years before understanding how it worked. That is an interesting comparison. Let's look a little closer. In the last 30 years, woodstoves have improved in safety, efficiency and pollution control. They were invented by Franklin, but they are still being improved. Even though fire is our oldest technology, every form of combustion technology is still being improved, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions. Every dollar is well spent, since the improvements save fuel and improve safety. Gas-fired house furnaces are much safer, quieter and better than they were in the 1980s. Some do not even need a chimney; you can exhaust the gas around 10 feet off the ground safely, since it has no CO in it. Internal combustion engines are the most widely used technology on earth, but they are still being improved. These improvement could not be made without deep knowledge of combustion, chemistry, materials and related subjects. In the past, people put up with unsafe products to an extent we would find unthinkable today. Until the 1870s, steam engine boilers often exploded. This was easily prevented. The ASME and the Congress put in place regulations and inspections, and the accident rate fell overnight. Up until the 1960s, automobiles had dozens of egregious safety problems. Many were fixed at no cost, or in ways that actually saved money in construction and materials. For example the 1950s style fins and other protrusions were eliminated. Those fins used to gore people in accidents. They served no purpose other than decoration. Dashboards and steering wheels were made of hard material. Padding them cost nothing. Seat belts were installed. They are by far the most effective way of reducing injury and death in accidents. From the 1920s until around 1970, cars killed roughly 1.2 million people. (I think that is the number, but it could be higher.) Far more than all of wars in U.S. history. A large fraction of those deaths could have been eliminated with common-sense measures such as padded dashboards and seatbelts. The death rate per mile has plummeted since the 1960s. The actual absolute number of people killed in many states has fallen to levels not seen since the 1920s. My point is, we are not living in 1870, or 1960. People will not put up with innovative new technology that is half-baked and dangerous. We have to do all of the RD anyway. It makes more sense to spend the money and do the work *before* the product is introduced. That will save thousands of lives and billions of dollars that would be wasted on third-rate, short-lived technology. We can learn from history. We do not have to kill and maim people and waste money the way our ancestors did. We can set a higher standard. Our society is much wealthier and better educated. We have computers. We have thousands of capable engineers and scientists in laboratories equipped with instruments that seem miraculous by the standards of the 1970s. Why not take advantage of this marvelous stuff to do the job right? Why not use the best people, the best instruments, and the best capabilities of the 21st century? This is the most important breakthrough in the history of technology. It is worth trillions of dollars. In my opinion Rossi's problem is not that he is too ambitious. He is not thinking too big, except in the scale of the 1 MW reactor. He is thinking much too small! He is doing things on a garage-scale start-up manufacturing venture. As someone here remarked, it is as if he has developed a better formula for windshield washing fluid, and he stocking a small warehouse in Florida with cartons of the stuff. What we need is a venture on the scale of the Normandy Invasion. We could have that -- easily -- if Rossi or Defkalion would only act in their own best interests, and reveal the technology in a way that will ensure their own future profits, instead of farting around with penny-ante ventures. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Plea for math/statistics expertise from RonPaulForums.com
LEAST significant digit. On Mar 16, 2012 2:48 AM, Xavier Luminous xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com wrote: Off the top of my head I'd like to mention that Benford's Law is particularly good at rooting out cheaters. Basically, the most significant digit from a sets of naturally occurring data tends to follow a well known power law distribution. This is true for things like lengths of rivers, street addresses, amounts entered on your taxes, etc. I know they use this in voting already, but I'm not sure exactly how. Would be interesting to see how this works out in this particular case. On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:03 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The reason I'm posting this to vortex-l is that of all the candidates, the only one that represents a serious threat to establishment science is Ron Paul. The basic story is that a signature of vote flipping has turned up -- and the beneficiary in every case of this signature has been Mitt Romney. This analysis, if validated, could trigger the collapse of the Soviet, er, American Empire. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping . The first message is a good synopsis of the current arguments.
Re: [Vo]:Plea for math/statistics expertise from RonPaulForums.com
ok, I make a mistake. there is a law that any set of physical value (unbounded), will have the most significant digit respect a log law. this case seems different. and also i should have guessed that vote don't respect that law, since it is bounded. however correlations, or indirect values, should respect that law 2012/3/17 Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com LEAST significant digit. On Mar 16, 2012 2:48 AM, Xavier Luminous xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com wrote: Off the top of my head I'd like to mention that Benford's Law is particularly good at rooting out cheaters. Basically, the most significant digit from a sets of naturally occurring data tends to follow a well known power law distribution. This is true for things like lengths of rivers, street addresses, amounts entered on your taxes, etc. I know they use this in voting already, but I'm not sure exactly how. Would be interesting to see how this works out in this particular case. On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:03 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The reason I'm posting this to vortex-l is that of all the candidates, the only one that represents a serious threat to establishment science is Ron Paul. The basic story is that a signature of vote flipping has turned up -- and the beneficiary in every case of this signature has been Mitt Romney. This analysis, if validated, could trigger the collapse of the Soviet, er, American Empire. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping . The first message is a good synopsis of the current arguments.
Re: [Vo]:Open-Source-LENR-reactor
post #3 intermediate note. The case of Case. He is definitely not your typical scientist. He is/was a practitioner with 30years experience, and as such one does not so much rely on theory but on intuition. What works and not is more in your bones and not in your head. This makes a difference, because this is not peer-reviewable, and reveals a fundamental problem of peer-reviewed scientific method: That it scraps intuition altogether and replaces it by a mechanical method of intersubjective verification, where all the intricate details are put under the rug of the method. The fight is about those accepting some sort of sublime, and those who build up knowledge up from the robust, i.e. the hard skeptics. What the hard skeptics miss, is, that their axioms -ie Occam- are on shaky ground, or more to the point: Occam does not have a foundation in 'reality'.
Re: [Vo]:Open-Source-LENR-reactor
post #4 Not being a chemist or nuclear chemist, I have a difficult time to understand the role of catalysts, above that, that they ease CHEMICAL reactions. In the domain of nuclear reactions the role of catalysts is more difficult to understand. How eg can a chemical agent be so potent, that it helps overcome the Coulomb barrier? Sorry, but maybe I’m too simpleminded here. The role of catalysts in this context has a sausage-like appeal to me. The clean method would be, to have a nano-lattice (say 5nm Ni particles) on the one side, and Protons (ionized H) on the other side, and help them interact via an electric or electromagnetic field. It is basically the lattice and its nonlinear oscillatory states, who do the heavy lifting of overcoming the coulomb barrier. My naïve interpretation would be, that this can never be done by a chemical agent, ie catalyst. So the basic setup would be a a Ni-H+ environment, assisted by EM-fields, which assist in interaction. If that does not start a LENR-process, one has in lockstep to vary the conditions together with the theory. It does not help to senselessly add ingredients , like the alchemists did, and add a bit of hopium. This is not to say that intuition does not play a significant role, which it obviously does.
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Woz one of the first to pick up a new IPAD Hi def
Here are some interesting microphotos of the Kindle versus IPad screen appearance and resolution: http://www.bit-101.com/blog/?p=2722 I have a 2nd gen Kindle. The 3rd gen has better contrast. I find that for reading long books, the IPad is better. Less eyestrain. Easier to flip to a different chapter or section of the book. The photos and figures are better. Perhaps the 3rd gen Kindle would be better. The low contrast is the biggest problem. As you see in the photos, these things are not quite up to the level of good quality paper books. They are better than newspapers or cheap paperbacks. Larger print, too. Eventually they will exceed the quality of paper, in both resolution and contrast. In the distant future I expect we will have digital paper the size of a newspaper, suitable for displaying things like art books, mechanical drawings, and maps. Regarding cameras, years ago I examined a 35 mm film negative and a photo under a microscope to estimate how many pixels they have. That is, individual grains with about 1 color each. I read a variety of estimates of this on the Internet. The topic was hotly disputed by camera aficionados. It depends on film quality and the camera. Anyway, my estimate was that ordinary film in our camera captured roughly 16 megapixels. We had to get a new camera the other day after an unnamed party dropped ours. It has 16.2 MP. It seems most of them do. So I guess digital cameras have finally caught up with 35 mm film resolution. They have been better in many other ways for a long time. We stopped using film years ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Open-Source-LENR-reactor (Convert to a Forum)
The first thing we need to do is to convince Bill to convert this mail list into a forum format. If we can't share and posts images and files, any open source collaboration is dead before it starts. Clearly, the needs of the collective has developed beyond the capabilities of this crude mailing list. Rather than various people creating various forums, just so that we can post images and files, let's encourage Bill to do the right thing. Frankly, I am getting tired of using this backward technology. It is difficult, cumbersome and time consuming to follow discussions or to respond to posts. I still go to AlienScientists when I need to post some files about my project. The E-Cat replication thread that Aperyox created is the longest thread so far. But, I'd rather post here where people are much much smarter and more informed. In the age of IPads and snazzy web sites, this combersome mailing list just won't cut it, even the web interface of the mailing list that I use. So, Bill... Please convert this mailing list into a forum format. I'm sure we can find at least half a dozen people in this collective who will voluntarily help you do it and migrate the old contents. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Woz one of the first to pick up a new IPAD Hi def
Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 18:45 Samstag, 17.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Woz one of the first to pick up a new IPAD Hi def Jed, how can an enlightened person like you are, engage in such -ahem- silly distinctions/preferences? just wondering. Here are some interesting microphotos of the Kindle versus IPad screen appearance and resolution: http://www.bit-101.com/blog/?p=2722 I have a 2nd gen Kindle. The 3rd gen has better contrast. I find that for reading long books, the IPad is better. Less eyestrain. Easier to flip to a different chapter or section of the book. The photos and figures are better. Perhaps the 3rd gen Kindle would be better. The low contrast is the biggest problem. Maybe I'm on another planet, where more hobbits than transhumanists live. Just wondering. Guenter
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Woz one of the first to pick up a new IPAD Hi def
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Jed, how can an enlightened person like you are, engage in such -ahem- silly distinctions/preferences? just wondering. It is not silly. Eyestrain can give you headache. It is important to make documents easy to read. I have been reading a bunch of Edwardian British novels on iPad lately. And Tolstoy. It may be more readable than paper. Nice big print. Meanwhile, print-on-demand equipment is improving: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/with-this-machine-you-can-print-your-own-books-at-the-local-bookstore/254431/ Just about the time they perfect this, and begin lowering the cost, no one will want paper books anymore. Technology often blossoms and improves radically just before it vanishes. The last generation of sailing ships, mainly schooners, had steel masts and steel cables instead of ropes. The sails could be spread or furled from the deck, with cranks. The ship were much safer and took a much smaller crew than conventional sailing ships. Still, they could not compete with steamships. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Woz one of the first to pick up a new IPAD Hi def
Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 19:43 Samstag, 17.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Woz one of the first to pick up a new IPAD Hi def It is not silly. Eyestrain can give you headache. It is important to make documents easy to read. I have been reading a bunch of Edwardian British novels on iPad lately. And Tolstoy. It may be more readable than paper. Nice big print. -- Jed. Count me as not convinced. Reading is not a mere decoding of letters, which may have been a good thing in Gutenbergs time, but has to be assessed anew everytime. Think Apple/Jobs and its strange restrictions on freedom of the word through filtering. Quite Orwellian, that. Why not filter out LENR, LANR, Cold fusion and the like. This is nowadays a simple decision by Apple, Google Facebook and some deciders in the background. The effect would simply disappear, by a proper choice of sematic -ahem- treatment. OK?
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Woz one of the first to pick up a new IPAD Hi def
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Think Apple/Jobs and its strange restrictions on freedom of the word through filtering. Quite Orwellian, that. You are mistaken. There are no restrictions on the books available on the iPad. It displays any book you purchase for the Kindle, or any eBook you upload directly. It displays any video that you can see on another computer, such as the ones at Netflix. There are a few video formats it does not support. I have not purchased any books, music or videos from Apple. I do not know about their policies. The Kindle also displays books you purchase or documents you upload to it directly, in various formats. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Woz one of the first to pick up a new IPAD Hi def
From Jed: Regarding cameras, years ago I examined a 35 mm film negative and a photo under a microscope to estimate how many pixels they have. That is, individual grains with about 1 color each. I read a variety of estimates of this on the Internet. The topic was hotly disputed by camera aficionados. It depends on film quality and the camera. Anyway, my estimate was that ordinary film in our camera captured roughly 16 megapixels. We had to get a new camera the other day after an unnamed party dropped ours. It has 16.2 MP. It seems most of them do. So I guess digital cameras have finally caught up with 35 mm film resolution. They have been better in many other ways for a long time. We stopped using film years ago. According to some professional photographers they think the magic barrier actually happened closer to the 12 megapixel range. A professional photographer I've known since the late 1970s, Ctein. Ctein.com came to this conclusion after carefully analyzing the random displacement of the dye crystals used in most film under a microscope. In his opinion, there is so much randomness in where individual crystals were placed within the emulsion that the 16 megapixel barrier was overkill. He writes a lot of articles for professional photography magazines like the following: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/ctein/page/ 2/ http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/02/wha t-cant-digital-do-for-me.html If you browse some of his articles you will immediately notice he spends a great deal of time assembling information graphics and statistics to back up his conclusions. Here's a photo of Ctein with what I suspect is probably some of the last manufactured packages of dye transfer print paper. Ctein is one of a rare handful who still can produce dye-transfer film. He keeps his stock of chemicals in a refrigerator. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f8834014e8ab8e18497 0d-popup Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Woz one of the first to pick up a new IPAD Hi def
Von:Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com … You are mistaken. … So may it be. As long as I can lend any book in any format to any friend with bookmarks and notes for the next 100 years, I can live with that. Surely Apple and Amazon give me exactly that. Reminds me of one of my favorite songs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FaXmRWXLjM. Btw, I was having a hard time today explaining the big difference between insightfulness/awarenesss and intelligence, which an insightful person immediately recognizes, an 'intelligent' person: not.
[Vo]:Open-Source-LENR-reactor
-- Forwarded message -- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Date: Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Open-Source-LENR-reactor To: Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com Hi Guenter, I am convinced that Rydberg matter is the causative factor in cold fusion. The study of Rydberg matter in its various forms is a very new field in Physics. Rydberg matter is a generalized term for a large variety of exotic forms of matter that sometimes appears in nature which can overcome the coulomb barrier in many cases. The key to building a successful cold fusion reactor is to understand what Rydberg matter is and how to reliably produce it in abundance and at a high excitation level. Rydberg matter is a generalize term used to clasify Rydberg atoms, Rydberg molecules, one dimensional Rydberg crystals, the two dimensional liquid crystal forms, and the three dimensional solid crystal forms. What makes Rydberg matter work is that it is a source of a coherent electrostactic dipole field that can overcome the coulomb barrier. Just like a magnet can exert magnetic force by aligning all the aggregate spins of all its constituent sub-atomic particles in the same direction, Rydberg matter aligns all the electrostatic dipole forces of its many constituent atoms in its crystal structure in the same direction and in a coherent way. In magnetism, this coherence of the quantum mechanical magnetic dipole moment is the measure of the magnetic strength of a magnet. In like manner, this quantum mechanical electrostatic dipole moment is the measure of the strength of a Rydberg crystal. In an ordinary molecule, the dipole forces of the constituent atoms are aligned at random. In Rydberg matter, these dipole moments all point in the same direction and have the same wavelength. All the atoms in the crystal work together electrostatically to produce a strong electrostatic field just like the aligned nuclear spins in a magnet create a magnetic field. Various forms of Rydberg matter have been created by simple chemical action as in the experiments and demos of Mills and Arata. Also transmutation in living systems are most likely caused by chemically generated Rydberg matter. The excitation level of Rydberg matter is low in these systems and they produce transmutation reactions in a gentle way. Ed Storms says that only a relatively few nuclear active areas on the electrodes of a Fleischmann–Pons apparatus produce the cold fusion effect. This is due to the imbedding of Rydberg crystals in each of these areas, after they have been created by an electric spark. Rydberg matter can be formed by many different types of elements and even complex molecules. This has confused many workers in the cold fusion field because it is not the element that is important but it is the way that the matter is organized that is causative. Just like many elements can be used to form a magnet, it is the alignment of spin that makes a magnet functional. So too in Rydberg matter it is the alignment of dipole moments among the atoms in the Rydberg crystal that are important. And just like magnetic material, there are strong Rydberg elements and weak ones. In subsequent posts, I will go through various old cold fusion experiments and look at them in the context of Rydberg matter causation. This will give insight in how to form Rydberg matter in a high temperature environment, how it behaves, and how to control it. Regards, Axil On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.comwrote: -- post #4 Not being a chemist or nuclear chemist, I have a difficult time to understand the role of catalysts, above that, that they ease CHEMICAL reactions. In the domain of nuclear reactions the role of catalysts is more difficult to understand. How eg can a chemical agent be so potent, that it helps overcome the Coulomb barrier? Sorry, but maybe I’m too simpleminded here. The role of catalysts in this context has a sausage-like appeal to me. The clean method would be, to have a nano-lattice (say 5nm Ni particles) on the one side, and Protons (ionized H) on the other side, and help them interact via an electric or electromagnetic field. It is basically the lattice and its nonlinear oscillatory states, who do the heavy lifting of overcoming the coulomb barrier. My naïve interpretation would be, that this can never be done by a chemical agent, ie catalyst. So the basic setup would be a a Ni-H+ environment, assisted by EM-fields, which assist in interaction. If that does not start a LENR-process, one has in lockstep to vary the conditions together with the theory. It does not help to senselessly add ingredients , like the alchemists did, and add a bit of hopium. This is not to say that intuition does not play a significant role, which it obviously does.
Re: [Vo]:Open-Source-LENR-reactor
Von: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com An: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:41 Samstag, 17.März 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:Open-Source-LENR-reactor I am convinced that Rydberg matter is the causative factor in cold fusion. The study of Rydberg matter in its various forms is a very new field in Physics. - Axil, actually I was currently not aware of this. I'll take a look. The/my basic approach is to change as little as possible and as much as necessary. Upon closer look this is ofcourse dangerous, because it implies -per definition of the approach- that theories GRADUALLY change. Who exactly said, that this is the norm, or the way to go? We LIKE to have theory A upgraded to theory A+. Because this means BAU. Anyway. I'll take a look at Rydberg. best regards Guenter
[Vo]:We're Watching You
Salt Lake City soon to have more than one temple: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 Yottabytes of data?
Re: [Vo]:We're Watching You
Big Brother is protecting us all. Forget about privacy. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 17, 2012 8:46 pm Subject: [Vo]:We're Watching You Salt Lake City soon to have more than one temple: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 Yottabytes of data?
Re: [Vo]:Open-Source-LENR-reactor
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: post #3 intermediate note. The case of Case. He is definitely not your typical scientist. He is/was a practitioner with 30years experience, and as such one does not so much rely on theory but on intuition. What works and not is more in your bones and not in your head. This makes a difference, because this is not peer-reviewable, and reveals a fundamental problem of peer-reviewed scientific method: That it scraps intuition altogether and replaces it by a mechanical method of intersubjective verification, where all the intricate details are put under the rug of the method. The fight is about those accepting some sort of sublime, and those who build up knowledge up from the robust, i.e. the hard skeptics. What the hard skeptics miss, is, that their axioms -ie Occam- are on shaky ground, or more to the point: Occam does not have a foundation in 'reality'. I think occam's razor is useful for selecting explanatory axioms which emerge from a given philosphical outlook or paradigm, but it is a ridiculous basis for evaluating and comparing explanations which emerge from different paradigms.
[Vo]:New interviews with Focardi, Celani at Voyager - Italian TV 2012-03-19
http://www.lenrforum.eu/ In English board, the below information was posted. Voyager - Italian TV 2012-03-19 Yesterday, 07:29 New interviews with Focardi, Celani. Emilio del Giudice and Andrea Rossi. On “Voyager”, Italian TV program, broadcast in prime time, there will be (on next Monday, March 19) http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/03/appuntamenti-tv-e-webcast-della.html This is the launch on the Italian television of the Colloquium on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions that Francesco Celani (INFN Frascati) and Yogendra Srivastava (INFN Perugia) held three days later, on March 22, at CERN in Geneva. Antonella Posts: 2 Joined: Yesterday, 18:40 Re: Voyager - Italian TV 2012-03-19 Yesterday, 18:44 Not very good news, as Voyager is specialized in misteries such as pyramids, chuba cabras, UFO. The italian pathoskeptics will enjoy this soirée very much. drew Posts: 13 Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2012, 20:36 Re: Voyager - Italian TV 2012-03-19 Yesterday, 19:34 Dear Antonella Welcome to the forum and thanks for that insight on 'Voyager' most helpful 'Everything you can imagine is real' (Pablo Picasso) We hope so. --- Sengaku
