Re: [Vo]:Free Republic thread about cold fusion seems more positive

[hellokevin]

By all means, Abd, I'm asking -- on list.  Please show the list what you mean.
 
Is this the kind of treatment one can expect from Vortex-L?  I don't see anyone 
else getting such disrespect, not even Mary Yugo when she was directly 
operating against the list's rules.  
 
So, yes, please explain what you mean, in detail.  
 
Kevin O  

--- On Wed, 8/1/12, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Free Republic thread about cold fusion seems more positive
To: helloke...@sbcglobal.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, August 1, 2012, 9:08 PM


Mmmm looking at your posts, Kevin, I predict a site ban is coming. Not 
because of "cold fusion," but because of your own lack of restraint. You really 
describe the problem in your comment here.

Kevin, if you want to effectively represent cold fusion to the world,

please

grow

up.

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, you are welcome to ask, on or 
off-list.

By the way, you are indeed dealing with pseudoskeptics. So? What else would you 
expect?

At 03:52 PM 8/1/2012, helloke...@sbcglobal.net wrote:



> Hello Jed:
> Yes, that was me. I posted a lot of Cold Fusion articles over the last 3 
> years, starting from before Rossi arriving on the scene.
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
> 
> I put up with a lot of abuse from the skeptopath crowd, especially due to 
> Rossi pulling his showmanship shenanigans.
> 
>     I was operating with my hands behind my back, because I would call the 
>skeptopaths "seagulls".  It was an effective countermeasure to their constant 
>derision.  It was also an accurate representation of the scientific value of 
>their 'contributions'.   The admin moderator told me to stop calling them 
>that.  I gather I hurt their feelings.  But the admin moderator continued to 
>allow all kinds of stalking, disrupting, personal attacks and distortions from 
>the anti-LENR crowd.  Lately it's gotten worse. The moderator has started 
>pulling threads entirely.
> 
> Kevmo
> 
> p.s. I missed a chance to meet KP Sinha when he was in town.  He looked me up 
> and called me.  Unfortunately, that was the day that my car decided to go 
> kablooey.
> 
> 
> 
> Jed Rothwell
> Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:20:07 -0700
> 
> Hold it. This was the 2009 thread:
> 
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
> 
> Here is the recent one:
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732072/posts
> 
> 
> This is the Sinha ICCF-14 paper.
> 
> What I mean by "positive" is, for example, where someone said "this article 
> is bunk" someone else responded:
> 
> "This guy is a world class scientist with several articles published in peer 
> reviewed journals, and it pulls only from classical physics. Explain how it 
> is bunk."
> - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

[Alain Sepeda]

maye is it, like LENR rejection by sciencence administration,
a consequence of bad governance, linked to weak georvernment, free market.

in france when the big two tempest of  99 crossed  and devasted the
country, electricity was reconnected quite quickly by the state company,
strongly controlled by the politicians.

today the rate of breakdown of the grid have exploded, because of renewable
intermitent, and government abandon.

many break are caused by simple lack of maintenance

2012/8/1 Axil Axil 

> **The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the
> inability of government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of
> global warming large excursions from the norm will become business as
> usual. In the recent case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for
> sufficient reserve capacity to handle all possible contingencies.
>

[Vo]:Amazing Water Cavitation Fusion Link!!!

[Wm. Scott Smith]

Amazing Water Cavitation Fusion Link!!!

https://nanospireinc.com/Fusion.html 


  

Re: [Vo]:Free Republic thread about cold fusion seems more positive

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Mmmm looking at your posts, Kevin, I predict a site ban is 
coming. Not because of "cold fusion," but because of your own lack of 
restraint. You really describe the problem in your comment here.


Kevin, if you want to effectively represent cold fusion to the world,

please

grow

up.

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, you are welcome to 
ask, on or off-list.


By the way, you are indeed dealing with pseudoskeptics. So? What else 
would you expect?


At 03:52 PM 8/1/2012, helloke...@sbcglobal.net wrote:




Hello Jed:
Yes, that was me. I posted a lot of Cold Fusion articles over the 
last 3 years, starting from before Rossi arriving on the scene.


http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

I put up with a lot of abuse from the skeptopath crowd, especially 
due to Rossi pulling his showmanship shenanigans.


I was operating with my hands behind my back, because I would 
call the skeptopaths "seagulls".  It was an effective 
countermeasure to their constant derision.  It was also an accurate 
representation of the scientific value of their 
'contributions'.   The admin moderator told me to stop calling them 
that.  I gather I hurt their feelings.  But the admin moderator 
continued to allow all kinds of stalking, disrupting, personal 
attacks and distortions from the anti-LENR crowd.  Lately it's 
gotten worse. The moderator has started pulling threads entirely.


Kevmo

p.s. I missed a chance to meet KP Sinha when he was in town.  He 
looked me up and called me.  Unfortunately, that was the day that my 
car decided to go kablooey.




Jed Rothwell
Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:20:07 -0700

Hold it. This was the 2009 thread:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts

Here is the recent one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732072/posts


This is the Sinha ICCF-14 paper.

What I mean by "positive" is, for example, where someone said "this 
article is bunk" someone else responded:


"This guy is a world class scientist with several articles published 
in peer reviewed journals, and it pulls only from classical physics. 
Explain how it is bunk."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

[Axil Axil]

In the climate cycle of the earth, microorganisms gradually take carbon out
of the air and store it in the shallow ocean for about 100,000 years. This
causes an ice age. Increased Solar heating that comes from the earth's
100,000 year orbital perturbations, warm the average temperature of the
oceans above the oceanic carbon release point, and this trigger ends the
ice age  in less than 100 years.



We should be entering a new ice age in terms of orbital dimming of solar
radiation, but human activity is causing ocean warming which is triggering
amplified carbon based heating effect supported by a positive feedback type
of rapid release of carbon from the permafrost and the ocean.

See page three from this document for some revealing graphs.



http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf



I believe that the cosmic ray effect mentioned in this thread might be more
rightly associated with solar fast particle output. This in turn would
rightly find effect with the nominal solar orbital perturbations in the
100,000 year Milankovitch cycle.



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



The Earth's orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the
departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth's orbit
varies in time between nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) and
mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) with the mean eccentricity
of 0.028.



The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years
(eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between
components 95,000 and 125,000 years (with a beat period 400,000 years), and
loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of -0.03 to +0.02).
The present eccentricity is 0.017.





The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a
significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity
and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. The greatest
observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, while the theoretical
forcing is smaller at this scale, in regard to the ice ages. However,
observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest
climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle.



The resistance to these ideas about disruption of the carbon cycle is both
emotionally and commercially based. If the consequences arising from this
situation are properly recognized and accounted for, said consequences may
well be mitigated with minimal resources. As always, it is better to think
with your head than your heart or your pocketbook.



Cheers:   Axil




On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:23 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The historical records seem to support the supernova effect quite well.  I
> remember a TV show on PBS where they have found that the pan evaporation
> rate has increased over the years and if I recall correctly there was a
> large jump in the rate when the aircraft were banned from the sky after the
> World Trade Center attack.  This drop was attributed to loss of reflection
> of incoming light due to the lack of jet streams.
>
> The cloud experiment at CERN demonstrated that cosmic rays nucleate cloud
> formation much greater than the models predicted.  The CERN directors
> wanted the scientists to keep the information private and not draw any
> conclusions as related to global warming.  Had this experiment supported
> man made global warming in any fashion they would have trumpeted the news
> all over the place.
>
> The parallels to LENR suppression can be easily seen.  Our favorite
> scientist tormentors act in a similar fashion.
>
> We need to let science work in the proper manner and separate from
> politics.  The nonsense about scientist having a consensus that global
> warming is man made and thus must be solved at any cost is reprehensible.
> Reminds me of the old trick of declaring a dangerous enemy to get folks on
> the same trail.  How did we ever allow science to be used in this manner?
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Finlay MacNab 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 6:10 pm
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
>
>  Except that temperatures are rising faster at night than during the
> day
>
>  There may have been many reasons for temperature changes in the past.
>  It is clear that the current rise in temperature is due to a reduced flux
> of infra red light re-radiating into space at a constant temperature, not a
> change in the flux of visible light irradiating the earth.
>
>  --
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
> From: dlrober...@aol.com
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:38:22 -0400
>
>  I suspect that global warming is a real process that has been around for
> essentially ever.  Before we arrived on the scene it was at work on
> occasions and when we leave for the stars it will be as well.
>
> An interesting discussion can be found in this l

Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

[David Roberson]

The historical records seem to support the supernova effect quite well.  I 
remember a TV show on PBS where they have found that the pan evaporation rate 
has increased over the years and if I recall correctly there was a large jump 
in the rate when the aircraft were banned from the sky after the World Trade 
Center attack.  This drop was attributed to loss of reflection of incoming 
light due to the lack of jet streams.

The cloud experiment at CERN demonstrated that cosmic rays nucleate cloud 
formation much greater than the models predicted.  The CERN directors wanted 
the scientists to keep the information private and not draw any conclusions as 
related to global warming.  Had this experiment supported man made global 
warming in any fashion they would have trumpeted the news all over the place.

The parallels to LENR suppression can be easily seen.  Our favorite scientist 
tormentors act in a similar fashion.

We need to let science work in the proper manner and separate from politics.  
The nonsense about scientist having a consensus that global warming is man made 
and thus must be solved at any cost is reprehensible.  Reminds me of the old 
trick of declaring a dangerous enemy to get folks on the same trail.  How did 
we ever allow science to be used in this manner?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Finlay MacNab 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 6:10 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides


Except that temperatures are rising faster at night than during the day


There may have been many reasons for temperature changes in the past.  It is 
clear that the current rise in temperature is due to a reduced flux of infra 
red light re-radiating into space at a constant temperature, not a change in 
the flux of visible light irradiating the earth. 




To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:38:22 -0400


I suspect that global warming is a real process that has been around for 
essentially ever.  Before we arrived on the scene it was at work on occasions 
and when we leave for the stars it will be as well.
 
An interesting discussion can be found in this link:
 
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
The discussions by this blogger support global warming as a consequence of 
nearby super nova explosions.  It is interesting reading that might become the 
accepted explanation in the future.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides


The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the inability of 
government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of global warming 
large excursions from the norm will become business as usual. In the recent 
case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for sufficient reserve capacity 
to handle all possible contingencies.

If the decision is to pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into the air through the 
use of coal fired electrical production, all the results of that design must be 
anticipated, prepared for, funded, and expected.
 As a case study, the power deficit in India was worsened this year by a weak 
monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation, spurred farmers to use pumps to 
irrigate their fields long after the rains would normally have come, and kept 
temperatures higher, keeping air conditioners and fans running longer.
The cost of this event was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. This 
price is an unfunded consequence of global warming.
 
Cheers:  Axil


On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least 
temporally come true.  I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that 
they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the 
USA, but that turned out to be wrong.  I guess that if we wait long enough this 
will happen some day.
 
If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then 
forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few 
that do.  This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs.  And, 
in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy.   I 
predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major 
earthquake within the next 20 years.  A volcano will erupt that caused air 
traffic problems in the next 10 years.  I could go on, but I think you can see 
my point.
 
For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean 
currents as important.  How many additional major processes of nature are left 
out due to lack of knowledge?
 
I suspect that a lot of the damage done by "Climategate" was due to the rest of 
us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists.  They are human 
but p

RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

[Finlay MacNab]

Except that temperatures are rising faster at night than during the day
There may have been many reasons for temperature changes in the past.  It is 
clear that the current rise in temperature is due to a reduced flux of infra 
red light re-radiating into space at a constant temperature, not a change in 
the flux of visible light irradiating the earth. 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:38:22 -0400


I suspect that global warming is a real process that has been around for 
essentially ever.  Before we arrived on the scene it was at work on occasions 
and when we leave for the stars it will be as well.

 

An interesting discussion can be found in this link:



 

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

The discussions by this blogger support global warming as a consequence of 
nearby super nova explosions.  It is interesting reading that might become the 
accepted explanation in the future.



Dave









-Original Message-

From: Axil Axil 

To: vortex-l 

Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 4:32 pm

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides













The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the inability of 
government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of global warming 
large excursions from the norm will become business as usual. In the recent 
case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for sufficient reserve capacity 
to handle all possible contingencies.




If the decision is to pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into the air through the 
use of coal fired electrical production, all the results of that design must be 
anticipated, prepared for, funded, and expected.

 As a case study, the power deficit in India was worsened this year by a weak 
monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation, spurred farmers to use pumps to 
irrigate their fields long after the rains would normally have come, and kept 
temperatures higher, keeping air conditioners and fans running longer.


The cost of this event was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. This 
price is an unfunded consequence of global warming.

 

Cheers:  Axil





On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson  wrote:




Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least 
temporally come true.  I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that 
they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the 
USA, but that turned out to be wrong.  I guess that if we wait long enough this 
will happen some day.




 



If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then 
forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few 
that do.  This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs.  And, 
in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy.   I 
predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major 
earthquake within the next 20 years.  A volcano will erupt that caused air 
traffic problems in the next 10 years.  I could go on, but I think you can see 
my point.




 



For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean 
currents as important.  How many additional major processes of nature are left 
out due to lack of knowledge?



 



I suspect that a lot of the damage done by "Climategate" was due to the rest of 
us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists.  They are human 
but pretend to be among the Gods which is beyond their abilities.




 



The statements of Gore and others that the science is settled truly angers me.  
They have an economic or political agenda and do not want the real facts to 
emerge.  As a science minded person, I find such a statement appalling.




 



I could go on for a long time exposing pseudoscience of this nature, but enough 
for now.  It ceases to be real science as soon as it refuses to be challenged.



 



Dave 












-Original Message-


From: Axil Axil 


To: vortex-l 





Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 2:29 am


Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides



















http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413







 





Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades?





 





This is a predicted result of global
warming.





 





Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming…





 





10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation for
days.





 





http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1&hp







 





2nd
Day of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India







 





 



Cheers:  Axil







On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson  wrote:






Good post Mark.





 





I have heard that the global climate models have a mu

Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

[David Roberson]

I suspect that global warming is a real process that has been around for 
essentially ever.  Before we arrived on the scene it was at work on occasions 
and when we leave for the stars it will be as well.

An interesting discussion can be found in this link:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
The discussions by this blogger support global warming as a consequence of 
nearby super nova explosions.  It is interesting reading that might become the 
accepted explanation in the future.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides


The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the inability of 
government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of global warming 
large excursions from the norm will become business as usual. In the recent 
case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for sufficient reserve capacity 
to handle all possible contingencies.

If the decision is to pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into the air through the 
use of coal fired electrical production, all the results of that design must be 
anticipated, prepared for, funded, and expected.
 As a case study, the power deficit in India was worsened this year by a weak 
monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation, spurred farmers to use pumps to 
irrigate their fields long after the rains would normally have come, and kept 
temperatures higher, keeping air conditioners and fans running longer.
The cost of this event was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. This 
price is an unfunded consequence of global warming.
 
Cheers:  Axil


On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least 
temporally come true.  I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that 
they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the 
USA, but that turned out to be wrong.  I guess that if we wait long enough this 
will happen some day.
 
If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then 
forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few 
that do.  This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs.  And, 
in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy.   I 
predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major 
earthquake within the next 20 years.  A volcano will erupt that caused air 
traffic problems in the next 10 years.  I could go on, but I think you can see 
my point.
 
For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean 
currents as important.  How many additional major processes of nature are left 
out due to lack of knowledge?
 
I suspect that a lot of the damage done by "Climategate" was due to the rest of 
us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists.  They are human 
but pretend to be among the Gods which is beyond their abilities.
 
The statements of Gore and others that the science is settled truly angers me.  
They have an economic or political agenda and do not want the real facts to 
emerge.  As a science minded person, I find such a statement appalling.
 
I could go on for a long time exposing pseudoscience of this nature, but enough 
for now.  It ceases to be real science as soon as it refuses to be challenged.
 
Dave 



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 


Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 2:29 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides


http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413
 
Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades?
 
This is a predicted result of globalwarming.
 
Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming…
 
10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation fordays.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1&hp
 
2ndDay of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India
 
 
Cheers:  Axil


On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Good post Mark.
 
I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables that 
are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly inaccurate 
initial values when tied to know processes.  Most of us have used curve fitting 
programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect fit with enough 
variables to work with.  We can then brag about how well our curve matches the 
data.
 
The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted 
function into the future.  It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies to 
build up exponentially with time since our model is not based correctly.  It is 
my understanding that this is what occurs when the climate models are 
projected.  I read somewhere that they intentionally limit the time frames and 
rerun 

Re: [Vo]:Free Republic thread about cold fusion seems more positive

[hellokevin]

Hello Jed: 
Yes, that was me. I posted a lot of Cold Fusion articles over the last 3 years, 
starting from before Rossi arriving on the scene. 
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
 
I put up with a lot of abuse from the skeptopath crowd, especially due to Rossi 
pulling his showmanship shenanigans.  
 
    I was operating with my hands behind my back, because I would call the 
skeptopaths "seagulls".  It was an effective countermeasure to their constant 
derision.  It was also an accurate representation of the scientific value 
of their 'contributions'.   The admin moderator told me to stop calling them 
that.  I gather I hurt their feelings.  But the admin moderator continued to 
allow all kinds of stalking, disrupting, personal attacks and distortions from 
the anti-LENR crowd.  Lately it's gotten worse. The moderator has started 
pulling threads entirely.
 
Kevmo
 
p.s. I missed a chance to meet KP Sinha when he was in town.  He looked me up 
and called me.  Unfortunately, that was the day that my car decided to go 
kablooey.  
 
 
 




Jed Rothwell
Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:20:07 -0700
Hold it. This was the 2009 thread:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
Here is the recent one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732072/posts


This is the Sinha ICCF-14 paper.

What I mean by "positive" is, for example, where someone said "this article is 
bunk" someone else responded:"This guy is a world class scientist with several 
articles published in peer reviewed journals, and it pulls only from classical 
physics. Explain how it is bunk."- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

[Axil Axil]

**The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the
inability of government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of
global warming large excursions from the norm will become business as
usual. In the recent case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for
sufficient reserve capacity to handle all possible contingencies.


If the decision is to pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into the air through
the use of coal fired electrical production, all the results of that design
must be anticipated, prepared for, funded, and expected.

 As a case study, the power deficit in India was worsened this year by a
weak monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation, spurred farmers to use
pumps to irrigate their fields long after the rains would normally have
come, and kept temperatures higher, keeping air conditioners and fans
running longer.

The cost of this event was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range.
This price is an unfunded consequence of global warming.



Cheers:  Axil

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least
> temporally come true.  I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated
> that they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to
> hit the USA, but that turned out to be wrong.  I guess that if we wait long
> enough this will happen some day.
>
> If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then
> forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the
> few that do.  This is what I see as happening with regard to these
> programs.  And, in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of
> future accuracy.   I predict that the world is on a warming path and that
> there will a major earthquake within the next 20 years.  A volcano will
> erupt that caused air traffic problems in the next 10 years.  I could go
> on, but I think you can see my point.
>
> For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean
> currents as important.  How many additional major processes of nature are
> left out due to lack of knowledge?
>
> I suspect that a lot of the damage done by "Climategate" was due to the
> rest of us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists.  They
> are human but pretend to be among the Gods which is beyond their abilities.
>
> The statements of Gore and others that the science is settled truly angers
> me.  They have an economic or political agenda and do not want the real
> facts to emerge.  As a science minded person, I find such a statement
> appalling.
>
> I could go on for a long time exposing pseudoscience of this nature, but
> enough for now.  It ceases to be real science as soon as it refuses to be
> challenged.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 2:29 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
>
>
> http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413
>
>  Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades?
>
>  This is a predicted result of global warming.
>
>  Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming…
>
>  10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation for
> days.
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1&hp
>
>  *2nd Day of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India*
>
>
>  Cheers:  Axil
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>>  Good post Mark.
>>
>> I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables
>> that are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly
>> inaccurate initial values when tied to know processes.  Most of us have
>> used curve fitting programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect
>> fit with enough variables to work with.  We can then brag about how well
>> our curve matches the data.
>>
>> The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted
>> function into the future.  It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies
>> to build up exponentially with time since our model is not based
>> correctly.  It is my understanding that this is what occurs when the
>> climate models are projected.  I read somewhere that they intentionally
>> limit the time frames and rerun the models after a moderately short time
>> lapse to keep its projections within reason.  Apparently we have been
>> experiencing a modest cooling period worldwide (relative to expectations)
>>  that could not be explained by the models but the guys running them tend
>> to keep that quiet.
>>
>> Also, the effect of clouds has been a dog for them to incorporate into
>> the models in a way that makes sense.  Further complicate this by the
>> results of the Cloud experiment performed by CERN and you realize that
>> these models are toys.
>>
>> We need to think long and hard about our response

RE: [Vo]:Connect the dots : di Vito, Ansaldo Energia , Siemens, Rossi ...

[Ron Wormus]

Mark,
I had followed Evans work for some time years ago but his math is way over 
my head. Not long ago I received this communication from him Re Bearden:


In a message dated 29/03/2012 20:17:19 GMT Daylight Time

"I parted company with Tom Bearden fourteen years ago, and it is AIAS 
policy not to communicate with him. I know that he refers to www.aias.us a 
lot, so I hope he will learn something. The www.aias.us site has generated 
intense worldwide interest since 2003. A lot of unscrupulous people have 
tried to use Bearden against myself, but that campaign fizzled out years 
ago."


It took me some time to determine that Bearden was a fraud so I don't 
think Evans past association with him should reflect on his current 
theories.

Ron

--On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:43 PM -0700 MarkI-ZeroPoint 
 wrote:



Akira,
I am familiar with Myron Evans... a VERY, VERY prolific theorist -- over
800 publications -- see below for research summary.

My interest stemmed from Evans' work on Radiation-induced Fermion
Resonance, which he claims could be more accurate than NMR, and much
simpler in that it doesn't require strong mag-flds.

I contacted a mathematician who published several papers with Evans, and
he felt that Evans got off-track when he began collaborating with
Bearden... gee, don't know why? :-)  The mathematician thinks that
interaction led to almost professional suicide on Evans' part, and the
mathematician did not want to suffer the same fate and left the Evans'
research group. When I asked him about *the mathematical soundness of
Evans' work*, he had nothing bad to say... he left *only* because of
Evans' work with Bearden... Evans also has a Unified Field Theory.

-Mark

BRIEF SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORK

Over eight hundred publications in chemistry and physics, most of which
can be read on the Omnia Opera section of www.aias.us. First generally
accepted explanation of the far infra red region of the electromagnetic
spectrum in terms of statistical mechanics and computer simulation.
Pioneer and developer of computer simulation and animation, especially
with application to molecular motion. Pioneer and coordinator of the
multi technical investigation of molecular dynamics within the EMLG
founded at the British National Physical Laboratory. Many original
discoveries in molecular dynamics and statistical mechanics. Development
of field applied molecular dynamics computer simulation with
applications to non-linear optics, ESR and NMR. Discovery of the
fundamental longitudinal magnetic field of electromagnetic radiation,
the B(3) field. Development of higher topology electromagnetic gauge
theory, O(3) electrodynamics. Development of generally covariant unified
field theory, generally accepted as the leading theory of its type at
present. Industrial development of environment friendly devices such as
new energy devices which have no carbon footprint and produce no
emissions and counter gravitational device research.


-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Connect the dots : di Vito, Ansaldo Energia , Siemens,
Rossi ...

On 2012-07-31 21:24, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

[...]


As for a loose link with Siemens, have a look at this. There are hints
about a conference in Zurich on LENR in September.:

http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/low-energy-nuclear-reaction
-len r/

The "Horst" person of the email cited in the link above is Dr. Horst
Eckardt, Ph.D in solid state physics, who happens to work for Siemens.

(together with Dr. Myron Evans, he is one of authors of a new theory
aimed to replace the Standard Model, which from what I understand it -
but this is way beyond my expertise so take this with a grain of salt -
might also be better suited to explain how LENR work. Website here:
http://www.aias.us/ )

As I'm writing, a dedicated E-CatWorld blog post appeared here:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/rossis-e-cat-technology-to-be-presente
d-in -zurich-in-september/

Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:A possible LENR "convert"

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Yes, prolific is an understatement... but he has a research group that also 
publishes in support of his work, so it's not all from Dr. Evans.

Also see my post on the 31st, ~11:40pm, 
   Subject: Connect the dots... 
for some additional info.
-m

-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:A possible LENR "convert"

Hello group,

It looks like Dr.Myron Evans [1] recently became aware of LENR. Have a look at 
his latest blogposts, just beware of their amount as he's very
prolific:

http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/

His current ideas on LENR seem to be based on the mainstream scientific 
consensus (of data unreliability, etc), but he is open minded enough to ask 
others about recent progresses in this field and accept any positive news and 
update.

It will be interesting to check out his opinions about LENR after getting 
informed on recent progresses and theories. I hope he will be well advised. Jed 
would probably say that today there isn't any more proof than, say, 15 years 
ago, but surely there's at least more available information and public 
awareness, in my opinion.

 From the contact page on his blog it's possible to email Dr. Evans directly.

Warning: he *will* publish your email on his blog if he deems it interesting, 
so people who prefer to contact him privately might want to tell him to not do 
so.

Cheers,
S.A.

[1] Of the ECE theory: http://www.aias.us/

[Vo]:A possible LENR "convert"

[Akira Shirakawa]

Hello group,

It looks like Dr.Myron Evans [1] recently became aware of LENR. Have a 
look at his latest blogposts, just beware of their amount as he's very 
prolific:


http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/

His current ideas on LENR seem to be based on the mainstream scientific 
consensus (of data unreliability, etc), but he is open minded enough to 
ask others about recent progresses in this field and accept any positive 
news and update.


It will be interesting to check out his opinions about LENR after 
getting informed on recent progresses and theories. I hope he will be 
well advised. Jed would probably say that today there isn't any more 
proof than, say, 15 years ago, but surely there's at least more 
available information and public awareness, in my opinion.


From the contact page on his blog it's possible to email Dr. Evans 
directly.


Warning: he *will* publish your email on his blog if he deems it 
interesting, so people who prefer to contact him privately might want to 
tell him to not do so.


Cheers,
S.A.

[1] Of the ECE theory: http://www.aias.us/

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Daniel,

I know the future but like a lady called Cassandra I am not believed.
Defkalion is in Canada on a financially safe territory
next week they shal be at the great National Instruments
meeting and they will make presentations at ICCF-17. Let's
discuss when you have read these, OK?
Peter

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Are you saying that the will *surely* convince? Or just that they will
> only try. I mean, it's only a presentation, it doesn't seem that there is
> an ongoing open experiment with large and famous research
> institutes/companies.
>
>
> 2012/8/1 Peter Gluck 
>
>> Defkalion will also convince the public that its technology works.
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17

[Daniel Rocha]

Peter,

Are you saying that the will *surely* convince? Or just that they will only
try. I mean, it's only a presentation, it doesn't seem that there is an
ongoing open experiment with large and famous research institutes/companies.

2012/8/1 Peter Gluck 

> Defkalion will also convince the public that its technology works.
>

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Randy,

I think Defkalion will explain their understanding of the process- in some
extent at ICCF-17. I hope that the participants will listen with empathy
even if some old truths will be contradicted, actually by facts.
Defkalion will also convince the public that its technology works.
Re Rossi- he is not predictible and perhaps he does not define correctly
what is secret in his technology.
And he is not interested in collaboati ng with scientists, except for
publicity- at least it seems so.

Peter

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Randy Wuller  wrote:

> **
> Peter;
>
> The systematic careful detailed analysis you seek will likely happen in
> overwhelming quantity and quality if Defkalion or Rossi publish independent
> 3rd party tests and do definitive demonstrations.  The idea that they could
> do the above and don't leads to paralysis and very real and legitimate
> doubt as to this reality.  That is all that is now missing.
>
> Ransom
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *To:* CMNS  ; VORTEX 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:50 AM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I have written an Open Letter to ICCF-17-
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/08/open-letter-to-iccf-17.html
>
> It is a co-product of my discontent due to how the LENR field is
> progressing
> and of my desire to help.
> Appreciations, critics and even insults are all welcome, being forms of
> popularity and attention.
>
> Peter
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17

[Chemical Engineer]

Frank,

That was 600 C and 1000 C and not F...

On Wednesday, August 1, 2012, wrote:

> You are not kidding, it will soon be a year since Rossi's big test.  I
> worked for and was at meetings with a big utility.  Independent tests mean
> a lot.  The lack of such is a disappointment.
>
>  Increasingly bigger claims is no substitute for independent tests.  The
> claim of 600 deg F then 1000 deg F reminds me of an earlier period in new
> energy.
>
>  Henry Morray was one such inventor.  His device not only
> produced limitless free energy but it also picked up the weakest far away
> radio signals.  The addition claim of radio sensitivity was no substitute
> for an independent test.
>
>  Frank Znidarsic
>
>
>
>
>  Peter;
>
> The systematic careful detailed analysis you seek will likely happen in
> overwhelming quantity and quality if Defkalion or Rossi publish independent
> 3rd party tests and do definitive demonstrations.  The idea that they could
> do the above and don't leads to paralysis and very real and legitimate
> doubt as to this reality.  That is all that is now missing.
>
> Ransom
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Wuller  'rwul...@freeark.com');>>
> To: vortex-l  'vortex-l@eskimo.com');>>
> Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 10:02 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17
>
>  Peter;
>
> The systematic careful detailed analysis you seek will likely happen in
> overwhelming quantity and quality if Defkalion or Rossi publish independent
> 3rd party tests and do definitive demonstrations.  The idea that they could
> do the above and don't leads to paralysis and very real and legitimate
> doubt as to this reality.  That is all that is now missing.
>
> Ransom
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *To:* CMNS  ; 
> VORTEX
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:50 AM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17
>
>  Dear Friends,
>
>  I have written an Open Letter to ICCF-17-
>
>  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/08/open-letter-to-iccf-17.html
>
> It is a co-product of my discontent due to how the LENR field is
> progressing
> and of my desire to help.
> Appreciations, critics and even insults are all welcome, being forms of
> popularity and attention.
>
>  Peter
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17

[Daniel Rocha]

It was not Fahrenheit, it was Celsius!

2012/8/1 

> You are not kidding, it will soon be a year since Rossi's big test.  I
> worked for and was at meetings with a big utility.  Independent tests mean
> a lot.  The lack of such is a disappointment.
>
>  Increasingly bigger claims is no substitute for independent tests.  The
> claim of 600 deg F then 1000 deg F reminds me of an earlier period in new
> energy.
>
>  Henry Morray was one such inventor.  His device not only
> produced limitless free energy but it also picked up the weakest far away
> radio signals.  The addition claim of radio sensitivity was no substitute
> for an independent test.
>
>  Frank Znidarsic
>
>
>
>
>  Peter;
>
> The systematic careful detailed analysis you seek will likely happen in
> overwhelming quantity and quality if Defkalion or Rossi publish independent
> 3rd party tests and do definitive demonstrations.  The idea that they could
> do the above and don't leads to paralysis and very real and legitimate
> doubt as to this reality.  That is all that is now missing.
>
> Ransom
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Wuller 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 10:02 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17
>
>  Peter;
>
> The systematic careful detailed analysis you seek will likely happen in
> overwhelming quantity and quality if Defkalion or Rossi publish independent
> 3rd party tests and do definitive demonstrations.  The idea that they could
> do the above and don't leads to paralysis and very real and legitimate
> doubt as to this reality.  That is all that is now missing.
>
> Ransom
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *To:* CMNS  ; VORTEX 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:50 AM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17
>
>  Dear Friends,
>
>  I have written an Open Letter to ICCF-17-
>
>  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/08/open-letter-to-iccf-17.html
>
> It is a co-product of my discontent due to how the LENR field is
> progressing
> and of my desire to help.
> Appreciations, critics and even insults are all welcome, being forms of
> popularity and attention.
>
>  Peter
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17

[fznidarsic]

You are not kidding, it will soon be a year since Rossi's big test.  I worked 
for and was at meetings with a big utility.  Independent tests mean a lot.  The 
lack of such is a disappointment.  


Increasingly bigger claims is no substitute for independent tests.  The claim 
of 600 deg F then 1000 deg F reminds me of an earlier period in new energy.  


Henry Morray was one such inventor.  His device not only produced limitless 
free energy but it also picked up the weakest far away radio signals.  The 
addition claim of radio sensitivity was no substitute for an independent test. 


Frank Znidarsic









Peter;
 
The systematic careful detailed analysis you seek will likely happen in 
overwhelming quantity and quality if Defkalion or Rossi publish independent 3rd 
party tests and do definitive demonstrations.  The idea that they could do the 
above and don't leads to paralysis and very real and legitimate doubt as to 
this reality.  That is all that is now missing.
 
Ransom





-Original Message-
From: Randy Wuller 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 10:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17


Peter;
 
The systematic careful detailed analysis you seek will likely happen in 
overwhelming quantity and quality if Defkalion or Rossi publish independent 3rd 
party tests and do definitive demonstrations.  The idea that they could do the 
above and don't leads to paralysis and very real and legitimate doubt as to 
this reality.  That is all that is now missing.
 
Ransom
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Peter   Gluck 
  
To: CMNS ; VORTEX 
  
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:50   AM
  
Subject: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17
  


Dear Friends,  


  
I have written an Open Letter to ICCF-17-
  


  
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/08/open-letter-to-iccf-17.html
  

  
It is a co-product of my discontent due to how the LENR field is   progressing
  
and of my desire to help.
  
Appreciations, critics and even insults are all welcome, being forms   of
  
popularity and attention.
  


  
Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck  
Cluj, Romania
  
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com



 

Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides

[David Roberson]

Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least 
temporally come true.  I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that 
they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the 
USA, but that turned out to be wrong.  I guess that if we wait long enough this 
will happen some day.

If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then 
forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few 
that do.  This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs.  And, 
in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy.   I 
predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major 
earthquake within the next 20 years.  A volcano will erupt that caused air 
traffic problems in the next 10 years.  I could go on, but I think you can see 
my point.

For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean 
currents as important.  How many additional major processes of nature are left 
out due to lack of knowledge?

I suspect that a lot of the damage done by "Climategate" was due to the rest of 
us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists.  They are human 
but pretend to be among the Gods which is beyond their abilities.

The statements of Gore and others that the science is settled truly angers me.  
They have an economic or political agenda and do not want the real facts to 
emerge.  As a science minded person, I find such a statement appalling.

I could go on for a long time exposing pseudoscience of this nature, but enough 
for now.  It ceases to be real science as soon as it refuses to be challenged.

Dave 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 2:29 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides


http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413
 
Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades?
 
This is a predicted result of globalwarming.
 
Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming…
 
10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation fordays.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1&hp
 
2ndDay of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India
 
 
Cheers:  Axil


On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Good post Mark.
 
I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables that 
are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly inaccurate 
initial values when tied to know processes.  Most of us have used curve fitting 
programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect fit with enough 
variables to work with.  We can then brag about how well our curve matches the 
data.
 
The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted 
function into the future.  It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies to 
build up exponentially with time since our model is not based correctly.  It is 
my understanding that this is what occurs when the climate models are 
projected.  I read somewhere that they intentionally limit the time frames and 
rerun the models after a moderately short time lapse to keep its projections 
within reason.  Apparently we have been experiencing a modest cooling period 
worldwide (relative to expectations)  that could not be explained by the models 
but the guys running them tend to keep that quiet.
 
Also, the effect of clouds has been a dog for them to incorporate into the 
models in a way that makes sense.  Further complicate this by the results of 
the Cloud experiment performed by CERN and you realize that these models are 
toys.
 
We need to think long and hard about our response to the warming trend before 
we condemn many of the worlds poor to harsh conditions and prevent them from 
achieving an acceptable life stile.  I am not ready to accept the verdict of 
scientists that depend upon government funds for support without far stronger 
proof.  The statement that the science is settled should ruffle everyone's 
feathers.  This is total nonsense and any scientist that makes such a statement 
is ignorant.  Just consider how many of the laws of physics have been modified 
and over turned over the years.
 
Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 


Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 4:36 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides



I tend to agree with Bruno’s statement:
 
“… how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should take 
thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer models, 
which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet.”
 
During grad school I worked at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the 
University of Nevada System under Dr. James W Telford,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_sauthors=Telford,+James+W
His expertise was cloud microphysics and atmosp

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17

[Randy Wuller]

Peter;

The systematic careful detailed analysis you seek will likely happen in 
overwhelming quantity and quality if Defkalion or Rossi publish independent 3rd 
party tests and do definitive demonstrations.  The idea that they could do the 
above and don't leads to paralysis and very real and legitimate doubt as to 
this reality.  That is all that is now missing.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: CMNS ; VORTEX 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:50 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17


  Dear Friends,


  I have written an Open Letter to ICCF-17-


  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/08/open-letter-to-iccf-17.html


  It is a co-product of my discontent due to how the LENR field is progressing
  and of my desire to help.
  Appreciations, critics and even insults are all welcome, being forms of
  popularity and attention.


  Peter
  -- 
  Dr. Peter Gluck
  Cluj, Romania
  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Popular Science and a possible September LENR Cold Fusion arcticle

[Peter Gluck]

Call me Peter please, even aftere reading the Open Letter on my blog ( a
few hours from now)
Peter

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greetings Dr Gluck,
>
> IF my memory is correct, the scientific pundits criticized Edison for
> thinking that he could build a light
> bulb that didn t have oxygen based combustion. In the Nuclear
> Age..pundits..we need neutrons to
> get heat. As the internet term goes: ROTFLOL.
>
> Respectfully,
> Ron
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>> Dear Ron
>>
>> I will also try out what will say PopSci on Aug 1o.
>> Thank you for the good news from National Instruments
>> signalled by you this morning (here was morning) I think they will write
>> about the collaboration with Defkalion too.
>> I am preparing my Open Letter to ICCF-17, it is about how I see the
>> situation and the perspective of LENR and it is not conformist at all, some
>> statements and predictions will make
>> some colleagues very angry.
>>
>> Peter.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ron Kita wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks , Peter,
>>>
>>> I can only read about 33% of Vortex...so I have to make guesses.
>>>
>>> Such is life, but I will merely go to Popsi on August 10 and see IF..any
>>> has transpired.
>>>
>>> I also watch the New York Times Science Times at http://www.nytimes.com 
>>> every tuesday when they
>>> feature...Science Items.  So far..nothing.
>>>
>>> CNBC rebroadcasted CBS 60 Minutes: Cold Fusion , Hot Again.  Daily I
>>> send Squawk in the Street financial
>>> and Mad Money,  LENR Websites.  and the usual nothing.
>>>
>>> I used to send webpages to the editor at Popular Sciences, but  lost
>>> interest in Popular Science as a science
>>> magazine capable of independent thought. I think that there is a new
>>> editor.
>>>
>>> Again , many thanks.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>>>
 Dear Ron,

 It is circulating a gossip, just gossip that Rossi has tried a demo for
 PopSci and it was not a convincing success.
 Perhaps a colleague knows more or can ask at Popular Science.
 Peter


 On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Ron Kita wrote:

> Greetings Vortex,
>
> I remember discussion on a possible forthcoming Popular Science
> article and
> noted on the link below that the 10th of the month seem to be their
> issuance date:
>
> http://www.popsci.com/announcements/article/2012-07/august-2012-future-sports
>
> Hopefully,
> Ron Kita, Chiralexso August 10th at http://www.popsci.com
> might relate CF tech???
>



 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com


>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Popular Science and a possible September LENR Cold Fusion arcticle

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Dr Gluck,

IF my memory is correct, the scientific pundits criticized Edison for
thinking that he could build a light
bulb that didn t have oxygen based combustion. In the Nuclear
Age..pundits..we need neutrons to
get heat. As the internet term goes: ROTFLOL.

Respectfully,
Ron

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> Dear Ron
>
> I will also try out what will say PopSci on Aug 1o.
> Thank you for the good news from National Instruments
> signalled by you this morning (here was morning) I think they will write
> about the collaboration with Defkalion too.
> I am preparing my Open Letter to ICCF-17, it is about how I see the
> situation and the perspective of LENR and it is not conformist at all, some
> statements and predictions will make
> some colleagues very angry.
>
> Peter.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ron Kita wrote:
>
>> Thanks , Peter,
>>
>> I can only read about 33% of Vortex...so I have to make guesses.
>>
>> Such is life, but I will merely go to Popsi on August 10 and see IF..any
>> has transpired.
>>
>> I also watch the New York Times Science Times at http://www.nytimes.com 
>> every tuesday when they
>> feature...Science Items.  So far..nothing.
>>
>> CNBC rebroadcasted CBS 60 Minutes: Cold Fusion , Hot Again.  Daily I send
>> Squawk in the Street financial
>> and Mad Money,  LENR Websites.  and the usual nothing.
>>
>> I used to send webpages to the editor at Popular Sciences, but  lost
>> interest in Popular Science as a science
>> magazine capable of independent thought. I think that there is a new
>> editor.
>>
>> Again , many thanks.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Ron,
>>>
>>> It is circulating a gossip, just gossip that Rossi has tried a demo for
>>> PopSci and it was not a convincing success.
>>> Perhaps a colleague knows more or can ask at Popular Science.
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Ron Kita wrote:
>>>
 Greetings Vortex,

 I remember discussion on a possible forthcoming Popular Science article
 and
 noted on the link below that the 10th of the month seem to be their
 issuance date:

 http://www.popsci.com/announcements/article/2012-07/august-2012-future-sports

 Hopefully,
 Ron Kita, Chiralexso August 10th at http://www.popsci.com
 might relate CF tech???

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s E-Cat Technology to be Presented in Zurich, Switzerland on September 8-9

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2012-08-01 09:17, Wolf Fischer wrote:

It seems to be that none of the speakers is from a company with
reputation... Not a good sign in my opinion.


Yep, it doesn't exactly look like a high profile event, more like 
something reserved for companies directly involved in selling E-Cats.


It will be the first time Andrea Rossi will talk in front of a 
relatively big audience since the Defkalion GT presentation event last 
year, however (before the breakup). This is somewhat positive.


Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s E-Cat Technology to be Presented in Zurich, Switzerland on September 8-9

[Wolf Fischer]

It seems to be that none of the speakers is from a company with 
reputation... Not a good sign in my opinion.


Wolf



Hello group,
This is via E-CW (as most of the text below).

In a different thread here on Vortex-L I hinted that a conference 
which might involve Rossi and his products would be held at some point 
in September. More information about it is starting to arise. Follow 
this link:


http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/rossis-e-cat-technology-to-be-presented-in-zurich-in-september/ 



The conference where information about the E-Cat will be presented is 
entitled “Energy Change with E-Cat Technology” and will be held on 
September 8-9, at the Technopark Zurich, Technoparkstr. 1, CH 8005 
Zurich, Auditorium.


The Conference will be hosted by TransAltec Inc., E-Cat Germany and 
E-Cat Switzerland. Full details can be found at this link:


http://www.borderlands.de/Links/Kongress080912E-e.pdf.

Among the presenters will be E-Cat licensees from European regions, 
and (for the first time ever, I think) Andrea Rossi.


Cheers,
S.A.