Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[Axil Axil]

It is unlucky for Mark that he will be missing the biggest breaking story
that there will be in this millennium. Maybe he will come back to vortex
when the good news hits,


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> Awwwh.   :(
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Peter Gluck]

Is somebody interested in a documented discussion about:
"Use and abuse of the comma in the sanskrit poetry of the 13-th Century
B.C."?
There are 13,289 forums specialized in Evolution vs. Involution
Peter


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal
> of time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do
> his work for him.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
>>
>> I have a simple question:
>>
>> 1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?
>>
>> By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind)
>> turning into another species (another kind).  I do not mean micro-evolution
>> (aka variation, aka adaptation.)  I know micro-evolution occurs.  I want
>> macro-evolution demonstrated and observed.   Please state just one
>> example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable.  Darwinists
>> claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly
>> pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable.  I would like
>> to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated.
>> (Maybe not even repeated - just observed)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[Peter Gluck]

Mark, I and the history of LENR will regret your absence. You are a fine
journalist- was you forced to do this?
Peter


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> It is unlucky for Mark that he will be missing the biggest breaking story
> that there will be in this millennium. Maybe he will come back to vortex
> when the good news hits,
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
>> Awwwh.   :(
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of 
books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example.

Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one 
species change into another.  JUST ONE...



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  Jojo Iznart  wrote:


To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

I have a simple question:

1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? 


  There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian 
evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like 
questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease.


  I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level 
is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and 
micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious 
creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic 
deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just 
as a trick to fool us.


  If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't 
annoy people who know the subject.


  I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have 
learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about 
evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to 
educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of 
thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no 
chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain 
it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. 
Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or 
wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out!


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[Kevin O'Malley]

Thanks.  Those are exactly the kinds of opportunities I've been looking
for.  Have you put YOUR money where your mouth is in terms of LENR?  I
doubt it.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on "the integrity of the
>> majority of climate scientists".  I'm interested in seeing if there's real
>> science behind this constantly-changing thesis.  My conclusion at this time
>> is:  NO.  What is there has been driven more by politics than science.
>>
>
> Climate Corporation is a startup in San Francisco, not far from where I
> work, that use climate models to price insurance policies for farmers that
> want to insure their crops.  You should definitely warn these guys that
> they're in for a huge loss, because there's no science behind what they're
> doing:
>
> https://www.climate.com/
>
> Alternatively, if you think you can time things right, you should take out
> a short position on Monsanto, their parent company, for their
> blockheadedness in acquiring them.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

It is important to make this distinction because we need to be specific in our 
definition of what is occuring.

Mircro and Macro has nothing to do with size or amount of evolution.  It has 
something to do with the mechanism of evolution.  Many people nowadays do not 
like to use the term microevolution cause it invites confusion just like this.  
Microevolution is adaptation within a species (kind).  Lots of microevolution 
and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution (change of species/kind).  
This distinction is important.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:22 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  From Jojo

   

  > By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind)

  > turning into another species (another kind).  I do not mean micro-evolution

  > (aka variation, aka adaptation.)  I know micro-evolution occurs.  I want

  > macro-evolution demonstrated and observed.   Please state just one example

  > where this mechanism is observed and repeatable.  Darwinists claim that

  > their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed

  > out, science for it to be science must be repeatable.  I would like to

  > see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. 

  > (Maybe not even repeated - just observed)

   

  Butting in here... 

   

  Seems to me that Macro-Evolution is nothing more than Micro-Evolution 
happening on a much longer geological time-scale. I don't see what the big deal 
is. Why is it so important to make the distinction between what is considered 
micro versus macro. To me it makes logical sense to assume that stringing a 
couple hundred thousand micro changes together on a long successive string of 
successive micro-mutations will inevitably end up with blatant macro-mutation 
changes - when compared with what one started with. To me macro changes would 
have to be inevitable outcome. One just needs enough time for the baking 
process to complete.

   

  In a sense I think it is also somewhat of a misconception to describe Macro 
evolution as starting with species ":A" and then ending up with species "B".  
Macro evolution isn't about a start point, nor an end point. Macro evolution 
about the present and only the present. It doesn't care one whit about what 
happened yesterday, and it has no idea what to expect tomorrow. There is only 
one goal: to survive in the present. According to evolution theory, this is a 
never-ending process of constant change and adaption to minute changes in 
current environment conditions. But again, there really isn't any start and end 
point. I think it would be more accurate to describe both species "A" and 
species "B" as nothing more than tiny snapshots belonging to the uncompleted 
motion feature film showing the "motion" of evolution in constant change. This 
would be a film that for all tense and purposes never ends.

   

  There is no practical way to conduct a science experiment in a laboratory on 
observing Macro evolution changing a complex multi-cellular organism from 
species "A" to species "B", particularly when it takes geological time to make 
the transformation blatantly obvious.

   

  OTOH, it might be interesting to see if it's possible to observe the 
macro-evolution a simple organism, say a bacterium, or better yet a paramecium. 
Because their life cycles are short, one can produced countless generations 
which might allow an accumulation of micro mutations to eventually accumulate 
into macro mutations. We need to start with one kind of an environment and then 
gradually change the conditions in order to allow evolution to manifest a 
radically different organism over several years. Make sure the environmental 
changes occur reasonably slow so that the organism has time to produce 
FAVORABLE micro mutations and as such adjust micro-genetically. Keep a separate 
(original) sample of the initial organism, "A" ,then presumably after the 
experiment ends, compare the original genetic mapping with the later time-line 
genetic mapping. One important point to see if we really have produced new 
organism: The new organism must be so different that it is incapable of living 
in the environmental conditions of where its progenitors came from, and vice 
versa. For example, organism "A" can only live in temperatures of 50 degrees 
below, and organism "B" can only live in temperatures above 100 degrees... 
something like that.

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  svjart.orionworks.com

  zazzle.com/orionworks 

   

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

My friend, are you actually saying that my propane flat plate heat exchanger 
did not work is because I did it wrong?  Did you do any better?  Are you here 
to contend that the propane FPHE contraption actually works as you theorized?  
Can you make it work?  Please show us cause if it is overunity, that would be 
revolutionary and you will win the Nobel Prize.  Please show us your 
experiments.  (Oh sorry for asking ... you DON"T do any experiments LOL.)


Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:42 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal of 
time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do his 
work for him.



  On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

I have a simple question:

1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?  

By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) 
turning into another species (another kind).  I do not mean micro-evolution 
(aka variation, aka adaptation.)  I know micro-evolution occurs.  I want 
macro-evolution demonstrated and observed.   Please state just one example 
where this mechanism is observed and repeatable.  Darwinists claim that their 
theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science 
for it to be science must be repeatable.  I would like to see one example (just 
one example) where this is observed and repeated.  (Maybe not even repeated - 
just observed)




Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating

[Kevin O'Malley]

 My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating
scientific evidence.
***When it comes to cold fusion, Huzienga quotes ONLY outlier evidence.
When it comes to Carbon 14 dating, Jed is saying that the overall
(mainstream) evidence is appropriate for discussion.

I agree with Jed.  The OVERALL C14 evidence is appropriate for discussion,
and a good place to start is with the Wikipedia entry which gives ample
credence to errors & inaccuracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating


When you say that Jed is "no better than Huzienga when it comes to
evaluating scientific evidence", it amounts to a LENR insult.  Jed accepts
the wide range of evidence for cold fusion, as well as C14 dating.  You, on
the other hand, seem to only accept the evidence you want to accept.  And
that's exactly what you're accusing Jed of doing.  Hypocrisy, thy name is
jojo.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves.  Last
> time I checked, "Science" is and was a reputable publication.
>
>
> You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself from
> a tight spot.  You claim these results are errors, outlier or instrument
> errors,.  Now, you are saying you wouldn't know.  If you don't know, how
> can you say they were instrument errors.  How do you know they were
> imaginary, or fully explicable or gathered by someone who does not
> understand how instruments work.  What qualifies you to make an assertion
> like that?  Were you there?
>
> You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a
> belief system you hold dear.  Anything that upsets that belief system, you
> reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc.  My friend, you are no better
> than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence.
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
>
>  Jojo Iznart  wrote:
>
>
>>  The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper
>> of wide circulation.
>>
>
> I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you
> saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the
> authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on
> blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong
> readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual
> example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing.
>
>
>
>>Do you think these are all errors?
>>
>
> I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
> explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
> instruments work.
>
>
>
>>Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing
>> it?
>>
>
> If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover them.
> That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why
> trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give
> the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong
> leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic
> mistakes. To err is human.
>
>
>
>
>>  I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are
>> just a few I found.
>>
>
> You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge
> whether you have found it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  My friend, are you actually saying that my propane flat plate heat
> exchanger did not work is because I did it wrong?
>
***Yes.




> Did you do any better?
>
***Others seem to have done better than you in this replication attempt.




> Are you here to contend that the propane FPHE contraption actually works
> as you theorized?  Can you make it work?
>
***Interesting.  Using negative results to denigrate a theory.  Where have
we seen this before?  And also, where have we seen this stupid approach
proven invalid before?






>
> Please show us cause if it is overunity, that would be revolutionary and
> you will win the Nobel Prize.  Please show us your experiments.  (Oh sorry
> for asking ... you DON"T do any experiments LOL.)
>
***Some are experimentalists, some are theorists.  Where is YOUR theory so
we can happily dance on its grave?  Ooops, you haven't submitted a theory.
Even someone as pedestrian as myself have submitted theories to  this mail
archive.  But you haven't.  That doesn't seem to stop you from keying up on
some theorist that your favorite puppeteer "famous" email exchange artist
has you all wrapped around the Axil about...

>
> Jojo
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:42 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
>
> One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal
> of time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do
> his work for him.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
>>
>> I have a simple question:
>>
>> 1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?
>>
>> By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind)
>> turning into another species (another kind).  I do not mean micro-evolution
>> (aka variation, aka adaptation.)  I know micro-evolution occurs.  I want
>> macro-evolution demonstrated and observed.   Please state just one
>> example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable.  Darwinists
>> claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly
>> pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable.  I would like
>> to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated.
>> (Maybe not even repeated - just observed)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

Sure, we can work together, but I was not asking a religious question.  I am 
presenting a genuine challenge that Darwinian Evolutionist must meet.

Just show me one example of a species turning to another species.  Preferably 
one that is observed and repeatable.  But I am willing to back off and require 
only observed.

Surely if this were to happen, this should have happened in our accelerated 
bacteria experiments.  We should have seen bacteria change into some other 
species like a fungi or mold or leaf, etc.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  Jojo, I'm a genuine evolutionist.  I don't pick and choose when to turn on 
and off my intellectual integrity regarding evolution.  One thing my theory 
tells me is that you, like so many others who are irrationally religous, are 
doing what is necessary to survive in the hell hole that has been created of 
our civilization.


  I sympathize with your religious beliefs and, unlike scum like Dawkins et al, 
I do not begrudge them you.  


  Please, let us continue to with our separate beliefs and work together where 
we can.



  On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

I have a simple question:

1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?  

By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) 
turning into another species (another kind).  I do not mean micro-evolution 
(aka variation, aka adaptation.)  I know micro-evolution occurs.  I want 
macro-evolution demonstrated and observed.   Please state just one example 
where this mechanism is observed and repeatable.  Darwinists claim that their 
theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science 
for it to be science must be repeatable.  I would like to see one example (just 
one example) where this is observed and repeated.  (Maybe not even repeated - 
just observed)




Jojo

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Hi Folks,

  I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in 
working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything 
like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.  

  I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types of 
conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was one of 
them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, placed it 
on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! 

  Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.

  Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness.  

  http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA

  Jack

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

I don't recall hearing him talk about either manganese or chlorine, but
could have missed it.  They do have a vent that pulls the air exhaust out
while it's running.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> How does Mills protest his experimenters from chlorine compounds? The
> experiment should be covered in a glass container or a clear plastic box.
> With transmutation, there is no telling what vapors will be produced even
> through Mills says that there is no nuclear reactions going on, but don't
> believe that. Electric arcs always produce some level of transmutation,
>
> Stay away from manganese. Isn't Mills using manganese?
>
> http://www.asse.org/practicespecialties/articles/weldingfumes.php
>
> Use a respirator as recommended. Safety first.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:25 AM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> Good warning.  Chlorine gas can do great damage to your lungs and even
>> cause death.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Eric Walker 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 11:02 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>
>>   On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  I can give that a try.  What would you expect to see and how will we
>>> know if UV is emitted?
>>>
>>
>>  Be careful about fumes.  I recall reading that chlorine can form some
>> pretty nasty compounds under the right conditions.
>>
>>  Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put
between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that
managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jack Cole 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in
> working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything
> like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.
>
> I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types
> of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was
> one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water,
> placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright
> light!
>
> Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
>
> Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete
> darkness.
>
> http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
>
> Jack
>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with nothing at 
all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would be your controls.  to 
compare it with samples with water.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put 
between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that 
managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Hi Folks,

  I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in 
working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything 
like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.  

  I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for 
types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper 
was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, 
placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! 

  Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.

  Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete 
darkness.  

  http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA

  Jack

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

Yes, I was planning to do that.  I'll make a video of each test case.  I'll
try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip it in
water.

I'm also planning to try with titanium.  It will take a little work to get
a small enough piece of that cut.

I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression
drilled into it so I can place water into the impression.  Then I'll set
the electrode into the impression where the water is.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with nothing
> at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would be your
> controls.  to compare it with samples with water.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jack Cole 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
> It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put
> between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that
> managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
>> *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in
>> working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything
>> like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.
>>
>> I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for
>> types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and
>> copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it
>> in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some
>> bright light!
>>
>> Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
>>
>> Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete
>> darkness.
>>
>> http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small pellet 
with water.  This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet.  See if the 
spark is as intense as Mill's suncell.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Yes, I was planning to do that.  I'll make a video of each test case.  I'll 
try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip it in 
water.


  I'm also planning to try with titanium.  It will take a little work to get a 
small enough piece of that cut.


  I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression drilled 
into it so I can place water into the impression.  Then I'll set the electrode 
into the impression where the water is.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with nothing at 
all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would be your controls.  to 
compare it with samples with water.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put 
between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that 
managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Hi Folks,

  I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was 
in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything 
like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.  

  I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for 
types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper 
was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, 
placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! 

  Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.

  Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete 
darkness.  

  http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA

  Jack

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Sunil Shah]

I really don't know if "new diseases" counts as an example of evolution to you,
but a quick search came up with this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/

A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm

I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it
carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)

But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading 
"species"
(a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the "new diseases" 
suggestion.

/Sunil


From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800








Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, 
and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to 
give me ONE example.
 
Just one example of an observed macro-evolution 
event where we can see one species change into another.  JUST 
ONE...
 
 
 
Jojo
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Jed 
  Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As 
  Idiots
  

  
  
  Jojo Iznart  wrote:
  

  

To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists 
here:
 
I have a simple question:
 
1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian 
Evolution occuring? 
  

  There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian 
  evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly 
  like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes 
  disease.
  

  I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this 
  level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and 
  micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of 
religious 
  creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic 
  deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution 
just 
  as a trick to fool us.
  

  If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't 
  annoy people who know the subject.
  

  I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have 
  learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions 
about 
  evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying 
to 
  educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of 
  thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is 
  no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to 
  explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for 
  beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn 
  from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: 
  over and out!
  

  - Jed
  
  

RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

> Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution
> (change of species/kind).  This distinction is important.
 
How do you know that? And why must you maintain this distinction? Why is it 
important for you to keep them separate. I don't. What for?

Have you measured all those thousands of micro changes over hundreds of 
thousands of years and proven the contention that a species can't eventually 
transform into a different one? I know I'm not capable because I can't live 
that long, but neither can you. 

You seem to be implying that each micro change can never reset the center of 
the genetic normality of any species. But that's inaccurate. Every micro 
change... every micro-mutation automatically resets the center of genetic 
normality of the species for that particular organism. Actually, there is no 
way to keep a species from NOT changing over millennium. Each and every species 
on the planet is essentially an unstable macro-organism if one is capable of 
perceiving this "change" from a geological POV.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

> Just show me one example of a species turning to another species. 

On what time scale are we talking here?

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

Jojo,

I'll see if I can accomplish that.  In the meantime, here are the results
of testing.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/

We do get sparks without dipping in water.  The last two are after dipping
in water.  What do you think--more intense?

Jack



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small
> pellet with water.  This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet.
> See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jack Cole 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
> Yes, I was planning to do that.  I'll make a video of each test case.
>  I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip
> it in water.
>
> I'm also planning to try with titanium.  It will take a little work to get
> a small enough piece of that cut.
>
> I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression
> drilled into it so I can place water into the impression.  Then I'll set
> the electrode into the impression where the water is.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with
>> nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would be your
>> controls.  to compare it with samples with water.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>
>> It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put
>> between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that
>> managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
>>> *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in
>>> working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything
>>> like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.
>>>
>>> I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for
>>> types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and
>>> copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it
>>> in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some
>>> bright light!
>>>
>>> Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete
>>> darkness.
>>>
>>> http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[Daniel Rocha]

He's out because Jojo is spamming Vo with bullshith.


2014-08-26 4:17 GMT-03:00 Peter Gluck :

>  [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (peter.gl...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule
> 
> | More info
> 
>
> Mark, I and the history of LENR will regret your absence. You are a fine
> journalist- was you forced to do this?
> Peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

New diseases caused by new bacteria or viruses are simply variation within a 
species.  The bacteria never change to become something else other than 
bacteria.  This is not Macro-Evolution, this is micro-evolution.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Sunil Shah 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  I really don't know if "new diseases" counts as an example of evolution to 
you,
  but a quick search came up with this
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/

  A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm

  I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it
  carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)

  But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading 
"species"
  (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the "new diseases" 
suggestion.

  /Sunil




--
  From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
  Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800


  Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of 
books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example.

  Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one 
species change into another.  JUST ONE...



  Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


Jojo Iznart  wrote:


  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

  I have a simple question:

  1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? 


There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian 
evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like 
questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease.


I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this 
level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and 
micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious 
creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic 
deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just 
as a trick to fool us.


If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't 
annoy people who know the subject.


I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have 
learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about 
evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to 
educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of 
thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no 
chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain 
it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. 
Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or 
wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

Well, science is supposed to be "observable" and "repeatable".  That implies 
a timeframe within our lifetimes.  If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, 
it's not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you 
to believe.



Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: "Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots



Just show me one example of a species turning to another species.


On what time scale are we talking here?

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

Because the mechanism is different.

Macro-Evolution stipulates mutations that results in features that confer a 
survival advantage.  These changes occur from generation to generation. 
This is the definition of Natural Selection.


Micro-Evolution involves changes in features within a single individual 
species within its own lifetime.  When our skin turns dark after prolonged 
exposure to the sun, that is change but that is not Macro-evolution - it's 
micro-evolution, it's simply adaptation - changes within a species.  The 
changes never result in a new species.  The changes are rapid which results 
in new features.  The genetic code is already there in our DNA, no mutations 
need to occur to confer that new feature.  This is the critical thing that 
people must understand to understand the difference between Macro-Evolution 
vs. Micro-Evolution.


Macro-Evolution has never been observable or repeatable.  If you know of any 
example where we clearly observe a species changing to another species; 
please let me know and I'll shut up about Darwinian Evolution forever.



Jojo





- Original Message - 
From: "Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots



Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution
(change of species/kind).  This distinction is important.


How do you know that? And why must you maintain this distinction? Why is it 
important for you to keep them separate. I don't. What for?


Have you measured all those thousands of micro changes over hundreds of 
thousands of years and proven the contention that a species can't eventually 
transform into a different one? I know I'm not capable because I can't live 
that long, but neither can you.


You seem to be implying that each micro change can never reset the center of 
the genetic normality of any species. But that's inaccurate. Every micro 
change... every micro-mutation automatically resets the center of genetic 
normality of the species for that particular organism. Actually, there is no 
way to keep a species from NOT changing over millennium. Each and every 
species on the planet is essentially an unstable macro-organism if one is 
capable of perceiving this "change" from a geological POV.


Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.orionworks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[ChemE Stewart]

http://www.shafted.com.au/photos/albums/funnies/a/thumb_Animal%20Sex%20(Dog%20&%20Racoon).jpg


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

> Because the mechanism is different.
>
> Macro-Evolution stipulates mutations that results in features that confer
> a survival advantage.  These changes occur from generation to generation.
> This is the definition of Natural Selection.
>
> Micro-Evolution involves changes in features within a single individual
> species within its own lifetime.  When our skin turns dark after prolonged
> exposure to the sun, that is change but that is not Macro-evolution - it's
> micro-evolution, it's simply adaptation - changes within a species.  The
> changes never result in a new species.  The changes are rapid which results
> in new features.  The genetic code is already there in our DNA, no
> mutations need to occur to confer that new feature.  This is the critical
> thing that people must understand to understand the difference between
> Macro-Evolution vs. Micro-Evolution.
>
> Macro-Evolution has never been observable or repeatable.  If you know of
> any example where we clearly observe a species changing to another species;
> please let me know and I'll shut up about Darwinian Evolution forever.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson" <
> orionwo...@charter.net>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:28 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
>
>
>  Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution
>> (change of species/kind).  This distinction is important.
>>
>
> How do you know that? And why must you maintain this distinction? Why is
> it important for you to keep them separate. I don't. What for?
>
> Have you measured all those thousands of micro changes over hundreds of
> thousands of years and proven the contention that a species can't
> eventually transform into a different one? I know I'm not capable because I
> can't live that long, but neither can you.
>
> You seem to be implying that each micro change can never reset the center
> of the genetic normality of any species. But that's inaccurate. Every micro
> change... every micro-mutation automatically resets the center of genetic
> normality of the species for that particular organism. Actually, there is
> no way to keep a species from NOT changing over millennium. Each and every
> species on the planet is essentially an unstable macro-organism if one is
> capable of perceiving this "change" from a geological POV.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.orionworks.com
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense.  Could it just be a 
trick of the camera?  Does it really look more intense in person?

If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something Bummer.

For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology may be 
real, it is pictures like these that convince me.  How do you explain more 
intense sparking when dipped in water.  There appears to be no chemical 
explanation for this.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Jojo,


  I'll see if I can accomplish that.  In the meantime, here are the results of 
testing.


  http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/



  We do get sparks without dipping in water.  The last two are after dipping in 
water.  What do you think--more intense?


  Jack





  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small 
pellet with water.  This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet.  See 
if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Yes, I was planning to do that.  I'll make a video of each test case.  
I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip it 
in water. 


  I'm also planning to try with titanium.  It will take a little work to 
get a small enough piece of that cut.


  I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression 
drilled into it so I can place water into the impression.  Then I'll set the 
electrode into the impression where the water is.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with 
nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would be your 
controls.  to compare it with samples with water.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and 
put between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that 
managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Hi Folks,

  I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it 
was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get 
anything like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try. 
 

  I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities 
for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and 
copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in 
water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright 
light! 

  Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.

  Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete 
darkness.  

  http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA

  Jack

RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Chris Zell]

I gave up on Creationism for various reasons. One central reason is the 
profound lack of any ethical or moral background in "creation".  This is 
inconsistent with the idea of a personal God but entirely what should be 
expected from evolution. Nature red in tooth and claw.

Christians are too quick to quote Romans in regard to God's power seen thru his 
creation.  To human sensibilites, it is a world of predation and horror. 
Indeed, the record of dinosaurs contradicts the whole notion of a pacific 
beginning in Genesis.  This is likely why some crazier Creationists try to deny 
the fossils or say the Devil must have made them!

I used to argue that 'no one has ever observed a new species emerge that can no 
longer reproduce with its parent species'.  I was told some years back that 
that used to be true but now has been disproven in some studies of plants.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[Jojo Iznart]

How do you know that my friend?  Do you have your own Climate Model?

It's statements like these that make me conclude Axil does not really know what 
he is talking about.  He keeps spewing statements like these which no one 
challenges.

Look, the latent heat of fusion of water is 334kJ/kg, while the latent heat of 
Vaporization of water is 2260kJ/kg.  This means that water turning to steam 
will absorb more than 6.7 times of heat.  Why would water melting be the 
critical factor?




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


  Loss of ice is the key factor. The climate won't change much until most of  
the ice is gone. 

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[Mark Gibbs]

Thanks to all who noticed and kindly commented on my leaving the Vortex-L
list (apparently actually getting off the list takes rather longer than I
expected …).

Since you ask, I’m quitting because I simply don’t have the time to keep up
with all of the posts to the list most of which are definitely not in my
field. If something hot in LENR comes up and anyone cares to nudge me, I’d
be grateful but until then I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed for  a
breakthrough …

Best regards,
Mark.

RE: [Vo]:global warming?

[Chris Zell]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/

Climate changes all the time. Hence, "denial" of climate change is nonsense.

Yes, graphs show an upward tilt in warming - however, the change is not as 
catastrophic as many predicted.

Even without the above, the lack of predictions a few years into the future ( 
as Jed reported) is a failure in itself - or should cause the field to be 
questioned as to its practical utility.

I think the shoe should be on the other foot as to predictions.  Let's see what 
past climate predictions have proved most accurate over a reasonable time scale 
that does not involve a huge percentage of a normal lifespan. Referring to "all 
the work" and "long term climate change" creates a strawman.  As Keynes once 
said about economics, "in the long term, we are all dead".


From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell 
mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote:

This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery 
numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive 
graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, that's 
where the problem seems to be.

Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete 
failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be able to 
draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions that 
demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic record of 
a science-that-is-not-a-science.  I'm sure you can help us to better understand 
the poor state of the field by characterizing the error of climate science with 
some specificity -- for example, "no climate model has had a record of 
predicting the three-year moving average temperature to better than 60 percent 
(10 percent above random) when run over a period of more than 10 years" (this 
is an example that I pulled out of thin air).  To demonstrate the failure of a 
field, obviously we will not be able to do very much with a handful of 
prominent failures.  We must show that the all of the work of the field, taken 
together, is as good as rolling dice for helping us to understand long term 
climate change.

I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of climate 
science.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[Jojo Iznart]

My friend, you're the one causing great controversy and much questions for me.  
I'm simply responding to questions.  I haven't started a thread about religion 
at all.  You and other start the discussion about religion this time around.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe


  He's out because Jojo is spamming Vo with bullshith.




  2014-08-26 4:17 GMT-03:00 Peter Gluck :

  This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (peter.gl...@gmail.com) 
Add cleanup rule | More info 



Mark, I and the history of LENR will regret your absence. You are a fine 
journalist- was you forced to do this?
Peter


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







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

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[CB Sites]

Of course, referencing wattsupwiththat for anthropogenic global warming
facts is like learning about special relativity from a republican CEO.
 More or less your going to get dis-information.




On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/
>
> Climate changes all the time. Hence, "denial" of climate change is
> nonsense.
>
> Yes, graphs show an upward tilt in warming - however, the change is not
> as catastrophic as many predicted.
>
> Even without the above, the lack of predictions a few years into the
> future ( as Jed reported) is a failure in itself - or should cause the
> field to be questioned as to its practical utility.
>
> I think the shoe should be on the other foot as to predictions.  Let's see
> what past climate predictions have proved most accurate over a reasonable
> time scale that does not involve a huge percentage of a normal
> lifespan. Referring to "all the work" and "long term climate change"
> creates a strawman.  As Keynes once said about economics, "in the long
> term, we are all dead".
>
>  --
> *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:56 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:global warming?
>
>   On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell 
> wrote:
>
>   This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's
>> lottery numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create
>> predictive graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and
>> frankly, that's where the problem seems to be.
>>
>
>  Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete
> failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be
> able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions
> that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic
> record of a science-that-is-not-a-science.  I'm sure you can help us to
> better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error
> of climate science with some specificity -- for example, "no climate model
> has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to
> better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of
> more than 10 years" (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air).  To
> demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do
> very much with a handful of prominent failures.  We must show that the all
> of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for
> helping us to understand long term climate change.
>
>  I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of
> climate science.
>
>  Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Daniel Rocha]

Jack Cole, I will give you a few tips.

Do not try pressures above 10milibars. It will hardly block FUV. And you
need vacuum to detect XUV.

Also, do not get in contact directly with the firing. These can yield
neutrons and you can get very high doses overtime.




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

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Jojo Iznart]

Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 
16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds)

Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform.

Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform 
vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and 
single cell lifeform.)

This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days 
(504576/1) for it to evolve into Man.

This is absolutely ridiculous.  Evolution rates this fast must surely be 
observable.  Where are the observable changes we can see?

Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we 
have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it.  I truly wonder why that is 
the case.




Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  Jojo Iznart  wrote:


To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

I have a simple question:

1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? 


  There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian 
evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like 
questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease.


  I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level 
is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and 
micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious 
creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic 
deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just 
as a trick to fool us.


  If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't 
annoy people who know the subject.


  I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have 
learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about 
evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to 
educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of 
thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no 
chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain 
it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. 
Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or 
wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out!


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

It does look more intense.  I also got to thinking that the electrodes
could have condensation on them, thus producing a little bit of the effect.
 After I wiped them down and did another control run with electrodes only,
there was very little spark/light.  One attempt after wiping the
electrodes, produced no spark.

Also, the control with the wire only picks up moisture from my fingers.
 I'll have to figure out a way to place it to minimize that.

I tried a new run with constantan wire.  It was the most intense light yet.
 See the picture at the bottom of the post.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense.  Could it just be
> a trick of the camera?  Does it really look more intense in person?
>
> If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something Bummer.
>
> For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology
> may be real, it is pictures like these that convince me.  How do you
> explain more intense sparking when dipped in water.  There appears to be no
> chemical explanation for this.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jack Cole 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:39 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
> Jojo,
>
> I'll see if I can accomplish that.  In the meantime, here are the results
> of testing.
>
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/
>
> We do get sparks without dipping in water.  The last two are after dipping
> in water.  What do you think--more intense?
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small
>> pellet with water.  This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet.
>> See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>
>> Yes, I was planning to do that.  I'll make a video of each test case.
>>  I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip
>> it in water.
>>
>> I'm also planning to try with titanium.  It will take a little work to
>> get a small enough piece of that cut.
>>
>> I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression
>> drilled into it so I can place water into the impression.  Then I'll set
>> the electrode into the impression where the water is.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with
>>> nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would be your
>>> controls.  to compare it with samples with water.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>>
>>> It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put
>>> between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that
>>> managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


 Jojo



 - Original Message -
 *From:* Jack Cole 
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
 *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

 Hi Folks,

 I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was
 in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get
 anything like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first
 try.

 I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for
 types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and
 copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it
 in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some
 bright light!

 Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.

 Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete
 darkness.

 http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA

 Jack


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Axil Axil]

It seems to me that Jack needs to find some way of objectively measuring
light output through some sort of instrumentation. Any ideas?


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> Jack Cole, I will give you a few tips.
>
> Do not try pressures above 10milibars. It will hardly block FUV. And you
> need vacuum to detect XUV.
>
> Also, do not get in contact directly with the firing. These can yield
> neutrons and you can get very high doses overtime.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

That's some good work Jack.

Are the wire diameters and lengths the same?

If so, these evidences are very compelling to me.  Randy may truly be on to 
something.




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It does look more intense.  I also got to thinking that the electrodes could 
have condensation on them, thus producing a little bit of the effect.  After I 
wiped them down and did another control run with electrodes only, there was 
very little spark/light.  One attempt after wiping the electrodes, produced no 
spark.


  Also, the control with the wire only picks up moisture from my fingers.  I'll 
have to figure out a way to place it to minimize that.


  I tried a new run with constantan wire.  It was the most intense light yet.  
See the picture at the bottom of the post.


  http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/




  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense.  Could it just be a 
trick of the camera?  Does it really look more intense in person?

If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something Bummer.

For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology may 
be real, it is pictures like these that convince me.  How do you explain more 
intense sparking when dipped in water.  There appears to be no chemical 
explanation for this.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Jojo, 


  I'll see if I can accomplish that.  In the meantime, here are the results 
of testing.


  http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/



  We do get sparks without dipping in water.  The last two are after 
dipping in water.  What do you think--more intense?


  Jack





  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small 
pellet with water.  This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet.  See 
if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Yes, I was planning to do that.  I'll make a video of each test case. 
 I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip it 
in water. 


  I'm also planning to try with titanium.  It will take a little work 
to get a small enough piece of that cut.


  I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression 
drilled into it so I can place water into the impression.  Then I'll set the 
electrode into the impression where the water is.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with 
nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would be your 
controls.  to compare it with samples with water.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water 
and put between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount 
that managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
 wrote:

was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Hi Folks,

  I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After 
ensuring it was in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I 
could get anything like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the 
first try.  

  I remembered Mills talking about all the different 
possibilities for types of conductors that they might use in the commercial 
device, and copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, 
dipped it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with 
some bright light! 

  Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.

  Let me know wh

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

How about following Randy's lead.  Why not use a small solar panel and measure 
electrictiy output.  Just make sure you zero out the ambient light, or test it 
in the dark. Surely, this will be able to register small light intensity 
differences.




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It seems to me that Jack needs to find some way of objectively measuring 
light output through some sort of instrumentation. Any ideas?



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Jack Cole, I will give you a few tips.


Do not try pressures above 10milibars. It will hardly block FUV. And you 
need vacuum to detect XUV.


Also, do not get in contact directly with the firing. These can yield 
neutrons and you can get very high doses overtime.







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

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[David Roberson]

Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the conductivity 
of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out at the pellet?  
This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising enough thereby 
keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.

A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will 
result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.   What I am 
describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance to get 
the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open or short will have 
zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero condition with copper only and 
a much better power match with the water film.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put between 
the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that managed to 
adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:


was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
 
 
Jojo

 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Jack Cole 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15   AM
  
Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


  
Hi Folks,
  
I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring   it was in 
working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get   anything 
like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the   first try.  
  
I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities   for types of 
conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and   copper was one 
of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped   it in water, placed 
it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some   bright light! 
  
Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
  
Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in   complete darkness.  
  
http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
  
Jack

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several
> different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable
> period.  Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable.


The second statement -- "Not one of them indicate that a pause was
conceivable" -- this is a hard proposition to evaluate.  There are no doubt
many hundreds or thousands of climate models that have been proposed over
the years.  To evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a
rapid increase, ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of
statements made in the following publications (and probably others) over a
period of decades:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html

You will need to be conversant with units that are very different than ones
in other fields and will have to have a solid working knowledge of the
relevant physics, chemistry and biology.  If you have not personally made
the effort to keep on top of the specific models proposed in these journals
and the highly technical statements that have been made and debated ad
infinitum, you will need to place trust in someone else to do this homework
for you.  You will be a babe in the woods and will need to call upon
someone to get you out of the bind of knowing little about climate science,
like all of the rest of us non-specialists.

To get yourself out of this bind, you can choose the BBC, or the evening
news, or infographics published on a Web site.  Some will choose to put
their trust in inveterate climate skeptics whose funding is murky and
agenda unclear (this is a little like going to Huizenga or Taubes for
information about LENR).  Back of the envelope arguments about the inherent
difficulty of predicting things with such a chaotic system are helpful for
getting a zeroth order approximation, but they take us little further than
that.

You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric.


It is no doubt true that I have been guilty of putting too much trust in
experts at times.  I am grateful, though, to be far more skeptical than you
or others here in this particular instance.  I do not trust the BBC or the
New York Times or Fox News to provide more than vague sense of where things
are.  Ultimately I will only put trust in people who have invested the time
and effort to really understand everything that is being said and
demonstrated a clear knowledge of the minutiae, whether they are climate
scientists or investigative journalists.  I am grateful that my position
could not be easier to defend in this instance.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Blaze Spinnaker]

I don't get it.  Isn't this just electrical charges dissipating into the
moisturized air?   It's just the electricity radiating outwards.




On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  How about following Randy's lead.  Why not use a small solar panel and
> measure electrictiy output.  Just make sure you zero out the ambient light,
> or test it in the dark. Surely, this will be able to register small light
> intensity differences.
>
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:38 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
> It seems to me that Jack needs to find some way of objectively measuring
> light output through some sort of instrumentation. Any ideas?
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> Jack Cole, I will give you a few tips.
>>
>> Do not try pressures above 10milibars. It will hardly block FUV. And you
>> need vacuum to detect XUV.
>>
>> Also, do not get in contact directly with the firing. These can yield
>> neutrons and you can get very high doses overtime.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

Thanks Jojo.

I use the same piece of wire for the control and experimental. The only
difference is dipping in water (and any changes related to running the
current through the wire on the control run).

The constantan wire disintegrated on the last experimental trial.
On Aug 26, 2014 10:38 AM, "Jojo Iznart"  wrote:

>  That's some good work Jack.
>
> Are the wire diameters and lengths the same?
>
> If so, these evidences are very compelling to me.  Randy may truly be on
> to something.
>
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jack Cole 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
> It does look more intense.  I also got to thinking that the electrodes
> could have condensation on them, thus producing a little bit of the effect.
>  After I wiped them down and did another control run with electrodes only,
> there was very little spark/light.  One attempt after wiping the
> electrodes, produced no spark.
>
> Also, the control with the wire only picks up moisture from my fingers.
>  I'll have to figure out a way to place it to minimize that.
>
> I tried a new run with constantan wire.  It was the most intense light
> yet.  See the picture at the bottom of the post.
>
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense.  Could it just
>> be a trick of the camera?  Does it really look more intense in person?
>>
>> If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something Bummer.
>>
>> For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology
>> may be real, it is pictures like these that convince me.  How do you
>> explain more intense sparking when dipped in water.  There appears to be no
>> chemical explanation for this.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:39 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>
>> Jojo,
>>
>> I'll see if I can accomplish that.  In the meantime, here are the results
>> of testing.
>>
>> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/
>>
>> We do get sparks without dipping in water.  The last two are after
>> dipping in water.  What do you think--more intense?
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small
>>> pellet with water.  This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet.
>>> See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>>
>>> Yes, I was planning to do that.  I'll make a video of each test case.
>>>  I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then dip
>>> it in water.
>>>
>>> I'm also planning to try with titanium.  It will take a little work to
>>> get a small enough piece of that cut.
>>>
>>> I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little impression
>>> drilled into it so I can place water into the impression.  Then I'll set
>>> the electrode into the impression where the water is.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with
 nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would be your
 controls.  to compare it with samples with water.


 Jojo



  - Original Message -
 *From:* Jack Cole 
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
  *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:39 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

 It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put
 between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that
 managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.


 On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
 wrote:

>  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jack Cole 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was
> in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get
> anything like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first
> try.
>
> I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for
> types of conductors that they might use in the c

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

Dave, 

A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the impedance 
that much.  Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light output.  There 
appears to be something going on here.

Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you are 
performing the tests. 

The output power can be measured with a small solar panel.

That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on how to measure input power?  Other 
than a watthour meter, I'm out.  Although I doubt a common watthour meter would 
be sensitive enough.  Another option is an oscilloscope on the electrodes.





Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the conductivity 
of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out at the pellet?  
This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising enough thereby 
keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.

  A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will 
result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.   What I am 
describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance to get 
the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open or short will have 
zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero condition with copper only and 
a much better power match with the water film.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put 
between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that 
managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Hi Folks,
  I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in 
working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything 
like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.  
  I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for 
types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper 
was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, 
placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! 
  Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
  Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete 
darkness.  
  http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
  Jack

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[David Roberson]

Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where a 
beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share genes 
with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members.

My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that 
they can still breed together.  I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise.

Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two 
different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about).

I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate 
among themselves but do not bear young as a result.  I do not keep up with such 
statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and 
can enlighten us.  If these different mating species have the same number of 
chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species.  At least 
this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it 
can be found.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Sunil Shah 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots



I really don't know if "new diseases" counts as an example of evolution to you,
but a quick search came up with this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/

A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm

I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it
carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)

But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading 
"species"
(a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the "new diseases" 
suggestion.

/Sunil




From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800


Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of 
books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example.
 
Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one 
species change into another.  JUST ONE...
 
 
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Jed   Rothwell 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51   AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As   Idiots
  


  
  
  
Jojo Iznart  wrote:
  

  


To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

 

I have a simple question:

 

1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? 

  


  
There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian   
evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly   
like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes   
disease.
  


  
I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this   level 
is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and   
micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious  
 creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic   
deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just  
 as a trick to fool us.
  


  
If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't   
annoy people who know the subject.
  


  
I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have   
learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about  
 evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to 
  educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of 
  thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is  
 no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to   
explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for   
beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn   
from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say:   
over and out!
  


  
- Jed
  




  

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

David, the spot welder works with extremely low impedance to begin with.
 It just puts that high power straight through the metal to melt it (low
voltage and high current ~4000 amps).  Do you think that tiny amount of
water film would have much effect on the impendance when the electrode is
also directly touching the copper?

It's worth thinking about some more.  Can you think of how to test it?

Best,
Jack



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the
> conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out
> at the pellet?  This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising
> enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.
>
> A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will
> result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.   What
> I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance
> to get the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open or short
> will have zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero condition with
> copper only and a much better power match with the water film.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Jack Cole 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
>  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put
> between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that
> managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
>> *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>
>>  Hi Folks,
>> I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in
>> working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything
>> like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.
>> I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for
>> types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and
>> copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it
>> in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some
>> bright light!
>> Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
>> Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete
>> darkness.
>> http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
>> Jack
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

I don't know how to measure the input power.  We're talking 2-5V and
3000-4000 amps.  I'd be scared to hook my oscilloscope up to it.  You could
maybe do it on the supply side from the 110AC with a watt meter, but that
would be the power going in to the transformer.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  Dave,
>
> A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the
> impedance that much.  Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light
> output.  There appears to be something going on here.
>
> Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you
> are performing the tests.
>
> The output power can be measured with a small solar panel.
>
> That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on how to measure input power?
> Other than a watthour meter, I'm out.  Although I doubt a common watthour
> meter would be sensitive enough.  Another option is an oscilloscope on the
> electrodes.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
> Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the
> conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out
> at the pellet?  This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising
> enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.
>
> A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will
> result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.   What
> I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance
> to get the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open or short
> will have zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero condition with
> copper only and a much better power match with the water film.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Cole 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
>  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put
> between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that
> managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
>> *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>> I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in
>> working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything
>> like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.
>> I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for
>> types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and
>> copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it
>> in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some
>> bright light!
>> Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
>> Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete
>> darkness.
>> http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
>> Jack
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Nigel Dyer]

This summer I read "On the Origin of the Species" from cover to cover 
for the first time.  I had not realised what a truely remarkable book it 
is.   It covers the dogs/wolves question in great detail.  In some 
respects my day job could be described as being an evolutionary 
geneticist, and it is remarkable how much of the detail of what I work 
on was predicted in Darwins book.  He describes in great detail the 
general principles of evolution, which are backed up by the DNA 
sequences that I work on.


Interestingly, Darwin discusses how if you specifically breed for 
variation in a specific characteristic (his example is pigieon beak 
length) then this shows greater variablity in future variations. He also 
discusses how some things show a remarkable fixedness over vast periods 
of time.   This suggests the possibility that evolution may proceed in 
fits and starts: puncutated equilibrium, and yet he then talks very much 
in terms of gradual and continuous evolution, which has become taken as 
the defining feature of Darwinian evolution.  Punctuated equilibrium is 
seen as somethiong of a heresy.


I have always felt that punctuated equilibrium was far more consistent 
with the evidence, both fossil records and from DNA, and I strongly 
suspect that it is associated with the DNA rearrangements that occur 
occasionally (I have been looking at a virus sequence where a section of 
the sequence has become inverted).  There was also a recent paper that 
shows that one of the differences between the hooded crow and the black 
crow, which can interbreed so is arguably a single species, is an 
inversion of part of the DNA sequence.   This will have occurred with 
one individual (a punctuation of the equilibrium), and has subsequently 
allowed the two crow races to drift away from each other, potentially 
leading ultimately to two species.


Nigel


On 26/08/2014 17:21, David Roberson wrote:
Correct me if Iam wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case 
where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no 
longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce 
among its new members.


My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I 
believe that they can still breed together.  I suppose my dog is a 
wolf in disguise.


Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of 
two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I 
have read about).


I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species 
that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result.  I do 
not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are 
knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us.  If these different 
mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once 
they shared a common ancestor species.  At least this would seem to be 
a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Sunil Shah 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

I really don't know if "new diseases" counts as an example of 
evolution to you,

but a quick search came up with this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/

A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm

I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact 
that it

carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)

But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a 
disease-spreading "species"
(a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the "new 
diseases" suggestion.


/Sunil



From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800

Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, and there are 
thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me 
ONE example.
Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see 
one species change into another.  JUST ONE...

Jojo

- Original Message -
*From:* Jed Rothwell 
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

Jojo Iznart mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com>> wrote:

To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
I have a simple question:
1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?


There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that
Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to
question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity,
or the fact that bacteria causes disease.

I am not going to debate this. Anyone

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[David Roberson]

Is it possible to measure the voltage that is appearing across the terminals 
with a scope?  The high currents will make your life miserable no doubt, but 
that would show whether or not the energy being delivered to the sample 
increases with the water film.  When I refer to terminals, I mean across the 
tips of the two electrodes since any series inductance or conductor resistance 
will contribute to the impendence of the source and modify the voltage and 
energy being delivered.

Water is much more resistive than copper and a film of it must come into 
contact a tiny bit of time before the metals pierce the film.  The amount of 
time for this to occur is unknown at the moment, but a voltage reading that is 
digitized rapidly will reveal that process if it is happening.  A fast and 
accurate current reading would be ideal as well.  The current might also show a 
pause in rise rate during the passage through the water film.

These suggestions are mainly how I would approach the measurement problem.  I 
tend to search for any phenomena that does not match the theoretical ideal.  In 
this case you are hoping that the same amount of energy is supplied to all of 
the cases and that is what you should test for.  Once you verify that the same 
energy is supplied, then on to the next set of questions.

I am sure you realize that the skeptics will never rest unless this type of 
proof is shown.  The current through the sample is going to make the voltage 
measurement extremely difficult and of course we might expect that Dr. Mills 
ran into this same issue during his demonstration.  It would be most 
interesting to observe exactly how he was able to derive the voltage and 
current waveforms he uses to calculate input energy.  I would not be surprised 
to find that this is a weakness in his test system.  

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


David, the spot welder works with extremely low impedance to begin with.  It 
just puts that high power straight through the metal to melt it (low voltage 
and high current ~4000 amps).  Do you think that tiny amount of water film 
would have much effect on the impendance when the electrode is also directly 
touching the copper? 


It's worth thinking about some more.  Can you think of how to test it?


Best,
Jack






On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the conductivity 
of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out at the pellet?  
This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising enough thereby 
keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.

A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will 
result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.   What I am 
describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance to get 
the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open or short will have 
zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero condition with copper only and 
a much better power match with the water film.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put between 
the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that managed to 
adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:


was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
 
 
Jojo

 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Jack Cole 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15   AM
  
Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


  
Hi Folks,
  
I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring   it was in 
working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get   anything 
like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the   first try.  
  
I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities   for types of 
conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and   copper was one 
of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped   it in water, placed 
it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some   bright light! 
  
Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
  
Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in   complete darkness.  
  
http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
  
Jack

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[H Veeder]

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

harry

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Daniel Rocha]

Liberal assumption? That's news to me.

There's a conservative assumption, which means a "cautious assumption",
which doesn't take outlier data as true until more data is accumulated.
This is not at all related to "conservative"/"liberal" politics.


2014-08-26 12:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

>  [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (jojoiznar...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule
> 
> | More info
> 
>
>  Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe
>


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

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[David Roberson]

Please note that I pointed out that I have not seen one graph predicting the 
long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every single model output 
since that would be a useless exercise.

Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry the 
most weight and they show no pause.  I assume that the next versions of their 
models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit that this 
is hindsight and not prediction as such.  When will the next major error be 
uncovered?  Are you 100% confident that we will not be entering into a cooling 
period during the next 20 years?

I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor performance of 
a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage to our standard of 
living.   They are merely high priests of a new religion that is dangerous and 
destructive.  Everyone has the ability to evaluate their model's output and 
should realize that it is inaccurate.  Why should we not use the good senses 
that God gave us?

Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not come to 
a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is entitled to their 
beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.



 Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several 
different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable 
period.  Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable. 


The second statement -- "Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable" 
-- this is a hard proposition to evaluate.  There are no doubt many hundreds or 
thousands of climate models that have been proposed over the years.  To 
evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a rapid increase, 
ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of statements made in the 
following publications (and probably others) over a period of decades:


http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html


You will need to be conversant with units that are very different than ones in 
other fields and will have to have a solid working knowledge of the relevant 
physics, chemistry and biology.  If you have not personally made the effort to 
keep on top of the specific models proposed in these journals and the highly 
technical statements that have been made and debated ad infinitum, you will 
need to place trust in someone else to do this homework for you.  You will be a 
babe in the woods and will need to call upon someone to get you out of the bind 
of knowing little about climate science, like all of the rest of us 
non-specialists.


To get yourself out of this bind, you can choose the BBC, or the evening news, 
or infographics published on a Web site.  Some will choose to put their trust 
in inveterate climate skeptics whose funding is murky and agenda unclear (this 
is a little like going to Huizenga or Taubes for information about LENR).  Back 
of the envelope arguments about the inherent difficulty of predicting things 
with such a chaotic system are helpful for getting a zeroth order 
approximation, but they take us little further than that.


You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric.



It is no doubt true that I have been guilty of putting too much trust in 
experts at times.  I am grateful, though, to be far more skeptical than you or 
others here in this particular instance.  I do not trust the BBC or the New 
York Times or Fox News to provide more than vague sense of where things are.  
Ultimately I will only put trust in people who have invested the time and 
effort to really understand everything that is being said and demonstrated a 
clear knowledge of the minutiae, whether they are climate scientists or 
investigative journalists.  I am grateful that my position could not be easier 
to defend in this instance.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[David Roberson]

Note that the constantan wire disintegrated during the test.  The implication 
is that much more energy was deposited into it than in the other cases.  This 
supports the proposition that some form of impedance matching is taking place 
since the impedance of constantan is much greater than copper.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


Thanks Jojo.
I use the same piece of wire for the control and experimental. The only 
difference is dipping in water (and any changes related to running the current 
through the wire on the control run).
The constantan wire disintegrated on the last experimental trial.
On Aug 26, 2014 10:38 AM, "Jojo Iznart"  wrote:


That's some good work Jack.
 
Are the wire diameters and lengths the same?
 
If so, these evidences are very compelling to me.  Randy may truly be on to 
something.
 
 
 
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Jack Cole 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:31   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


  
It does look more intense.  I also got to thinking that the   electrodes could 
have condensation on them, thus producing a little bit of the   effect.  After 
I wiped them down and did another control run with   electrodes only, there was 
very little spark/light.  One attempt after   wiping the electrodes, produced 
no spark.  


  
Also, the control with the wire only picks up moisture from my fingers.I'll 
have to figure out a way to place it to minimize that.
  


  
I tried a new run with constantan wire.  It was the most intense   light yet.  
See the picture at the bottom of the post.
  


  
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/

  


  
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:
  


Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense.  Could it just be a 
trick of the camera?  Does it really look more intense in person?

 

If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something Bummer.

 

For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology may 
be real, it is pictures like these that convince me.  How do you explain 
more intense sparking when dipped in water.  There appears to be no 
chemical explanation for this.

 

 

Jojo

 

 

  
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Jack Cole 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com   
  
  
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:39   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


  
Jojo,   


  
I'll see if I can accomplish that.  In the meantime, here are   the results 
of testing.
  


  
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/

  


  
We do get sparks without dipping in water.  The last two are   after 
dipping in water.  What do you think--more intense?
  


  
Jack
  


  


  
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:
  


consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a small 
pellet with water.  This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel 
pellet.  See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell.

 

 

Jojo

 

 

  
  
- Original Message - 
  
From: Jack Cole 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
  
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014   7:06 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell -   Initial Replication Attempt
  


  
Yes, I was planning to do that.  I'll make a video   of each test case. 
 I'll try with just the electrodes, with the   copper wire only, and 
then dip it in water.   


  
I'm also planning to try with titanium.  It will take a   little work 
to get a small enough piece of that cut.
  


  
I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little   impression 
drilled into it so I can place water into the impression.Then I'll 
set the electrode into the impression where the water   is.
  


  
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart
wrote:
  


could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also with 
nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would 
be your controls.  to compare it with samples with water.

 

 

Jojo

 

 

  
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Jack Cole 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
  

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[David Roberson]

It is the initial contact point that I am thinking about Jojo.  The water in 
that immediate path should rapidly turn into gas or plasma due to the energy 
deposited into it.  If the water does not matter then why would we expect it to 
contribute to the spark?  I suppose the real question is how thick is the film 
of water and how does it affect the voltage/current waveforms across the large 
contactors?

I believe that it will take a very good voltage and current measurement system 
to get to the bottom of this issue.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jojo Iznart 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt



Dave, 
 
A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the impedance 
that much.  Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light output.  There 
appears to be something going on here.
 
Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you are 
performing the tests. 
 
The output power can be measured with a small solar panel.
 
That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on how to measure input power?  Other 
than a watthour meter, I'm out.  Although I doubt a common watthour meter would 
be sensitive enough.  Another option is an oscilloscope on the electrodes.
 
 
 
 
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01   AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


Interesting   results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the conductivity 
of the   path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out at the pellet?   
 This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising enough thereby   
keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.

A water   film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will 
result in a   voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.   What I 
am   describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance to 
get   the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open or short will   
have zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero condition with   copper 
only and a much better power match with the water   film.

Dave
  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

  
  
It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water   and put 
between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the   amount that 
managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without   the water.
  


  
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznartwrote:
  


was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?

 

 

Jojo



 

 

  
- Original Message - 
  
From: Jack Cole   
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15   AM
  
Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


  
Hi Folks,
  
I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After   ensuring it was in 
working order, I decided to get right to it and see if   I could get 
anything like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got   something on the 
first try.  
  
I remembered Mills talking about all the different   possibilities for 
types of conductors that they might use in the   commercial device, and 
copper was one of them.  I cut a very small   piece of copper wire, dipped 
it in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit   the switch, and pop with 
some bright light! 
  
Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera   work.
  
Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in   complete 
darkness.  
  
http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
  
Jack

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Kevin O'Malley]

Interesting argument that I had not seen before.  And it starts with life
being present at the beginning, whereas the earliest life postulated by
abiogenesis proponents is about 5 Billion years ago.  That makes it a very
conservative theory.  Working backwards, we should see the kind of change
you postulate once every 2 days, not 6 days.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being
> 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds)
>
> Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell
> lifeform.
>
> Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell
> lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences
> between man and single cell lifeform.)
>
> This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84
> days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man.
>
> This is absolutely ridiculous.  Evolution rates this fast must surely be
> observable.  Where are the observable changes we can see?
>
> Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid,
> yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it.  I truly wonder why
> that is the case.
>
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
>
>  Jojo Iznart  wrote:
>
>  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
>>
>> I have a simple question:
>>
>> 1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?
>>
>
> There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian
> evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly
> like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes
> disease.
>
> I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this
> level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro-
> and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of
> religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God
> as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of
> evolution just as a trick to fool us.
>
> If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't
> annoy people who know the subject.
>
> I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have
> learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions
> about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time
> trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how
> the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and
> energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste
> of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion,
> including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's
> guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice.
> As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out!
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[torulf.greek]

Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time. 

Can it have
something to do with a increasing level of crackpottery at this site?


On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:05:13 -0700, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote: 

Interesting argument that I had not seen before. And it starts with
life being present at the beginning, whereas the earliest life
postulated by abiogenesis proponents is about 5 Billion years ago. That
makes it a very conservative theory. Working backwards, we should see
the kind of change you postulate once every 2 days, not 6 days.  

On
Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

Assuming the most
liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000
years. (504576 seconds) 

Assuming that at the birth of the
Universe there was a single cell lifeform. 

Assuming that there are
1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is
certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell
lifeform.) 

This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours
or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into
Man. 

This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must
surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see?


Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is
stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly
wonder why that is the case. 

Jojo 

- Original Message -

FROM: Jed Rothwell [2] 
TO: vortex-l@eskimo.com [3] 
SENT: Tuesday,
August 26, 2014 10:51 AM 
SUBJECT: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


Jojo Iznart  wrote: 

To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists
here: 

I have a simple question: 

1. What is your best evidence of
Darwinian Evolution occuring? 

There are thousands of books full of
irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or
anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of
gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. 

I am not going to
debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly
ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level
evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious
creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a
cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of
evolution just as a trick to fool us. 

If you want to learn about
evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the
subject. 

I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you
should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of
ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I
spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When
people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the
difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can
understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I
have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for
beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution.
Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke
used to say: over and out! 

- Jed 

 

Links:
--
[1]
mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com
[2] mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com
[3]
mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
[4] mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not
> come to a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is
> entitled to their beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.
>

I actually don't think our positions are that far part.  We're just
debating some secondary details.  As I've said on two previous occasions, I
don't think anyone should get a free check, climate scientists or anyone
else.  I'm just urging humility.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[Axil Axil]

Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few
decades to cool off the coasts.

Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster.
Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that
is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans
controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the
factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate.

If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay at
freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will
begin to heat on its way to boiling.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Please note that I pointed out that* I *have not seen one graph
> predicting the long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every
> single model output since that would be a useless exercise.
>
> Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry
> the most weight and they show no pause.  I assume that the next versions of
> their models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit
> that this is hindsight and not prediction as such.  When will the next
> major error be uncovered?  Are you 100% confident that we will not be
> entering into a cooling period during the next 20 years?
>
> I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor
> performance of a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage
> to our standard of living.   They are merely high priests of a new religion
> that is dangerous and destructive.  Everyone has the ability to evaluate
> their model's output and should realize that it is inaccurate.  Why should
> we not use the good senses that God gave us?
>
> Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not
> come to a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is
> entitled to their beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.
>
>
>  Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Eric Walker 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:03 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?
>
>   On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
> Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from
>> several different models and they all show a rapid increase during the
>> questionable period.  Not one of them indicate that a pause was
>> conceivable.
>
>
>  The second statement -- "Not one of them indicate that a pause was
> conceivable" -- this is a hard proposition to evaluate.  There are no doubt
> many hundreds or thousands of climate models that have been proposed over
> the years.  To evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a
> rapid increase, ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of
> statements made in the following publications (and probably others) over a
> period of decades:
>
>  http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html
>
>  You will need to be conversant with units that are very different than
> ones in other fields and will have to have a solid working knowledge of the
> relevant physics, chemistry and biology.  If you have not personally made
> the effort to keep on top of the specific models proposed in these journals
> and the highly technical statements that have been made and debated ad
> infinitum, you will need to place trust in someone else to do this homework
> for you.  You will be a babe in the woods and will need to call upon
> someone to get you out of the bind of knowing little about climate science,
> like all of the rest of us non-specialists.
>
>  To get yourself out of this bind, you can choose the BBC, or the evening
> news, or infographics published on a Web site.  Some will choose to put
> their trust in inveterate climate skeptics whose funding is murky and
> agenda unclear (this is a little like going to Huizenga or Taubes for
> information about LENR).  Back of the envelope arguments about the inherent
> difficulty of predicting things with such a chaotic system are helpful for
> getting a zeroth order approximation, but they take us little further than
> that.
>
>  You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric.
>
>
>  It is no doubt true that I have been guilty of putting too much trust in
> experts at times.  I am grateful, though, to be far more skeptical than you
> or others here in this particular instance.  I do not trust the BBC or the
> New York Times or Fox News to provide more than vague sense of where things
> are.  Ultimately I will only put trust in people who have invested the time
> and effort to really understand everything that is being said and
> demonstrated a clear knowledge of the minutiae, whether they are climate
> scientists or investigative journalists.  I am grateful that my position
> could not be easier to defend in this instance.
>
>  Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[James Bowery]

If the energy release is as great as claimed by Mills then the transformer
losses should be swamped by the energy output.

If all you have is a particular kind of electrode in contact with water
then the solution is pretty obvious:

Submerge the electrode in water as a bulk calorimeter, run it for a
reasonable integration period measuring the power input to the transformer
and then get the water temperature rise.



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> I don't know how to measure the input power.  We're talking 2-5V and
> 3000-4000 amps.  I'd be scared to hook my oscilloscope up to it.  You could
> maybe do it on the supply side from the 110AC with a watt meter, but that
> would be the power going in to the transformer.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  Dave,
>>
>> A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the
>> impedance that much.  Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light
>> output.  There appears to be something going on here.
>>
>> Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you
>> are performing the tests.
>>
>> The output power can be measured with a small solar panel.
>>
>> That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on how to measure input power?
>> Other than a watthour meter, I'm out.  Although I doubt a common watthour
>> meter would be sensitive enough.  Another option is an oscilloscope on the
>> electrodes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* David Roberson 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>
>> Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the
>> conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out
>> at the pellet?  This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising
>> enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.
>>
>> A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that
>> will result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.
>> What I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source
>> impedance to get the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open
>> or short will have zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero
>> condition with copper only and a much better power match with the water
>> film.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jack Cole 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>
>>  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put
>> between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that
>> managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Jack Cole 
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
>>> *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in
>>> working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything
>>> like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.
>>> I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for
>>> types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and
>>> copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it
>>> in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some
>>> bright light!
>>> Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
>>> Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete
>>> darkness.
>>> http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
>>> Jack
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[David Roberson]

Sounds good to me my friend.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not come to 
a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is entitled to their 
beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.




I actually don't think our positions are that far part.  We're just debating 
some secondary details.  As I've said on two previous occasions, I don't think 
anyone should get a free check, climate scientists or anyone else.  I'm just 
urging humility.


Eric

RE: [Vo]:global warming?

[Chris Zell]

I expect "experts" to produce hard results that verify their status as experts. 
 Otherwise, it starts to resemble theology.  It looks similar to economists who 
can't play the stock market or psychologists who can't predict parolee behavior 
above common sense.

I see two broad dangers in climate exaggerations. First, they may be pushing 
nations towards more development of nuclear energy - which may be dangerous, 
long term. Secondly, the legitimate concern over climate appears to be hyped up 
above other threats to humans.

I'm more worried about vanishing bees and the fact that the Western world has 
lost a widely agreed upon program for economic growth.  Keynesian ideas have 
failed leaving us open to war, scarcity and hopelessness. The otherwise noble 
trend towards renewables makes this lack worse as high paying jobs with fossil 
fuels are replaced by temp positions.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

I agree James.  I will be working to set up an electrolysis system.
 Although the behavior could be quite different in bulk water.  I'm going
to have to interface the welder with a control system to do single
occasional pulses.

I just ran another test with a different material - nitinol.  This departed
from the behavior I have seen with the other materials in that the
experimental and control test look pretty much the same.  It is the most
intense light yet.  See the last picture.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> If the energy release is as great as claimed by Mills then the transformer
> losses should be swamped by the energy output.
>
> If all you have is a particular kind of electrode in contact with water
> then the solution is pretty obvious:
>
> Submerge the electrode in water as a bulk calorimeter, run it for a
> reasonable integration period measuring the power input to the transformer
> and then get the water temperature rise.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> I don't know how to measure the input power.  We're talking 2-5V and
>> 3000-4000 amps.  I'd be scared to hook my oscilloscope up to it.  You could
>> maybe do it on the supply side from the 110AC with a watt meter, but that
>> would be the power going in to the transformer.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dave,
>>>
>>> A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the
>>> impedance that much.  Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light
>>> output.  There appears to be something going on here.
>>>
>>> Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you
>>> are performing the tests.
>>>
>>> The output power can be measured with a small solar panel.
>>>
>>> That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on how to measure input power?
>>> Other than a watthour meter, I'm out.  Although I doubt a common watthour
>>> meter would be sensitive enough.  Another option is an oscilloscope on the
>>> electrodes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* David Roberson 
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>>
>>> Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the
>>> conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out
>>> at the pellet?  This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising
>>> enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.
>>>
>>> A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that
>>> will result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.
>>> What I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source
>>> impedance to get the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open
>>> or short will have zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero
>>> condition with copper only and a much better power match with the water
>>> film.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jack Cole 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>>>
>>>  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put
>>> between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that
>>> managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


 Jojo



 - Original Message -
 *From:* Jack Cole 
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
 *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

 Hi Folks,
 I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was
 in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get
 anything like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first
 try.
 I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for
 types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and
 copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it
 in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some
 bright light!
 Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
 Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete
 darkness.
 http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
 Jack


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Kevin O'Malley]

If it's so easy to label his argument as crackpottery then it should be
just as easy for you to prove it.  So far, no one has addressed his
argument, just a bunch of sniping & commentary.  Perhaps if there was more
rational discussion of classical arguments, and less sniping, there'd be
less unsubscribing.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:06 AM,  wrote:

> Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time.
>
> Can it have something to do with a increasing level of crackpottery at
> this site?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:05:13 -0700, "Kevin O'Malley" 
> wrote:
>
> Interesting argument that I had not seen before.  And it starts with life
> being present at the beginning, whereas the earliest life postulated by
> abiogenesis proponents is about 5 Billion years ago.  That makes it a very
> conservative theory.  Working backwards, we should see the kind of change
> you postulate once every 2 days, not 6 days.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being
>> 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds)
>>
>> Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell
>> lifeform.
>>
>> Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell
>> lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences
>> between man and single cell lifeform.)
>>
>> This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84
>> days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man.
>>
>> This is absolutely ridiculous.  Evolution rates this fast must surely be
>> observable.  Where are the observable changes we can see?
>>
>> Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid,
>> yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it.  I truly wonder why
>> that is the case.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
>>   Jojo Iznart  wrote:
>>
>>  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
>>>
>>> I have a simple question:
>>>
>>> 1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?
>>>
>>  There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian
>> evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly
>> like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes
>> disease.
>>  I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this
>> level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro-
>> and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of
>> religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God
>> as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of
>> evolution just as a trick to fool us.
>>  If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook.
>> Don't annoy people who know the subject.
>>  I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should
>> have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous
>> assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too
>> much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no
>> idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between
>> power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is
>> a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold
>> fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded
>> beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance.
>> Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out!
>>  - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Terry Blanton]

I have it on good authority that the origins of Christianity and
Anthropomorphic GM is the common fungus
Amanita muscaria:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YD06vjg0Jg

And if you would kindly stick to the topic, or, at least otherwise
label your posts [OT] in the heading so that they might be easily
filtered, we would have fewer people leaving the list.

And now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[James Bowery]

Electrolysis is not typically associated with the enormous
currents/magnetic fields Mills now says are required.

Unless your definition of "electrolysis" includes arcing with high currents
and magnetic fields through plasma, don't bother with it in the gross bulk
calorimeter comparison with integrated transformer power input I suggested.


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> I agree James.  I will be working to set up an electrolysis system.
>  Although the behavior could be quite different in bulk water.  I'm going
> to have to interface the welder with a control system to do single
> occasional pulses.
>
> I just ran another test with a different material - nitinol.  This
> departed from the behavior I have seen with the other materials in that the
> experimental and control test look pretty much the same.  It is the most
> intense light yet.  See the last picture.
>
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> If the energy release is as great as claimed by Mills then the
>> transformer losses should be swamped by the energy output.
>>
>> If all you have is a particular kind of electrode in contact with water
>> then the solution is pretty obvious:
>>
>> Submerge the electrode in water as a bulk calorimeter, run it for a
>> reasonable integration period measuring the power input to the transformer
>> and then get the water temperature rise.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know how to measure the input power.  We're talking 2-5V and
>>> 3000-4000 amps.  I'd be scared to hook my oscilloscope up to it.  You could
>>> maybe do it on the supply side from the 110AC with a watt meter, but that
>>> would be the power going in to the transformer.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jojo Iznart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  Dave,

 A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the
 impedance that much.  Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light
 output.  There appears to be something going on here.

 Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you
 are performing the tests.

 The output power can be measured with a small solar panel.

 That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on how to measure input power?
 Other than a watthour meter, I'm out.  Although I doubt a common watthour
 meter would be sensitive enough.  Another option is an oscilloscope on the
 electrodes.





 Jojo



 - Original Message -
 *From:* David Roberson 
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

 Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the
 conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out
 at the pellet?  This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising
 enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.

 A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that
 will result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.
 What I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source
 impedance to get the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open
 or short will have zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero
 condition with copper only and a much better power match with the water
 film.

 Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: Jack Cole 
 To: vortex-l 
 Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and
 put between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount
 that managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the 
 water.


 On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart 
 wrote:

>  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jack Cole 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
>
> Hi Folks,
> I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was
> in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get
> anything like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first
> try.
> I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for
> types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and
> copper was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped 
> it
> in water, placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[David Roberson]

Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an overall 
warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will reverse and we 
will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over and over again 
according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt that polar ice 
contributes to the process along with countless other natural and man made 
phenomena.

When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have many 
years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not heard a 
great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that the current 
warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so dangerous to 
our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this becomes a rallying cry 
of that group of alarmists.  They will get my attention at that point provided 
their models begin to demonstrate accurate predictions without needing serious 
corrections every few years.

We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of this 
group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.  It may 
well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not subject to 
accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might merely be a 
natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic driving forces.  
Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and effect.

The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will rapidly 
reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas releases 
needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our concerns about 
what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current conditions and 
realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the past and will find a 
solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific understanding that will 
develop during that period will appear as magic to us. 

Dave 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?



Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few decades 
to cool off the coasts. 


Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster. 
Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that is 
when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans controls the 
temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the factor that 
introduces the oscillations in the climate.


If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay at 
freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will begin to 
heat on its way to boiling. 




On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Please note that I pointed out that I have not seen one graph predicting the 
long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every single model output 
since that would be a useless exercise.

Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry the 
most weight and they show no pause.  I assume that the next versions of their 
models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit that this 
is hindsight and not prediction as such.  When will the next major error be 
uncovered?  Are you 100% confident that we will not be entering into a cooling 
period during the next 20 years?

I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor performance of 
a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage to our standard of 
living.   They are merely high priests of a new religion that is dangerous and 
destructive.  Everyone has the ability to evaluate their model's output and 
should realize that it is inaccurate.  Why should we not use the good senses 
that God gave us?

Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not come to 
a resolution that is acceptable to both of us.  Everyone is entitled to their 
beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.



 Dave

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?





On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several 
different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable 
period.  Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable. 


The second statement -- "Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable" 
-- this is a hard proposition to evaluate.  There are no doubt many hundreds or 
thousands of climate models that have been proposed over the years.  To 
evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a rapid increase, 
ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of statements made in the 
following publications (and probably others) over a period of decades:


http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.

[Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

[jwinter]

On 27/08/2014 12:43 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
This summer I read "On the Origin of the Species" from cover to cover 
for the first time.  I had not realised what a truely remarkable book 
it is.   It covers the dogs/wolves question in great detail.
I bought a copy but still haven't got around to reading it.  Knowing 
that Darwin knew nothing of genetics, I have trouble in getting excited 
about anything he might have to say on the subject - which is why I 
haven't read it yet.  But on your recommendation maybe I should.


In some respects my day job could be described as being an 
evolutionary geneticist, and it is remarkable how much of the detail 
of what I work on was predicted in Darwins book.  He describes in 
great detail the general principles of evolution, which are backed up 
by the DNA sequences that I work on.
For quite a while I have wanted to ask someone working in your field 
about what DNA has to say about evolution of species so maybe now is a 
good time.


I have almost no doubt that physical life on this planet has evolved 
from a very simple looking self-replicating organism into the plethora 
of life forms which past and present have occupied it.  But the 
mechanism by which this process occurs is still a complete mystery to 
me.  I am totally convinced (from the maths) that random processes 
cannot by any means produce the complex folding proteins that are needed 
for life - so the question is how did they arise? Is it possible that 
the first life form (that as a minimum must have been implanted on this 
planet) could have contained in some condensed form sufficient 
information and machinery to evolve into all the life forms that have 
occurred?  Or is it necessary that some additional injection or meddling 
was necessary along the way?


For instance, as I understand it, the frog was one of the first 
creatures to invade the land from the sea and all land vertebrates 
evolved from the frog.  So one question would be, is there sufficient 
information in the DNA of a frog, to have the potential of developing 
(by pre-designed but natural means) into all the land animals that have 
occurred (and of course the sea mammals)?  Or is it necessary to 
postulate some other source of DNA information which needs to be added 
to the limited information available in frog DNA?


So my question is really this:-  From your knowledge of the DNA content 
of various life forms (and assuming the so-called "junk" DNA between 
gene coding regions actually contains useful information for possible 
future evolution), is there sufficient information in the DNA of simpler 
looking life forms to allow them to evolve into the more complex types, 
or does information need to be added?


Interestingly, Darwin discusses how if you specifically breed for 
variation in a specific characteristic (his example is pigieon beak 
length) then this shows greater variablity in future variations.   He 
also discusses how some things show a remarkable fixedness over vast 
periods of time.   This suggests the possibility that evolution may 
proceed in fits and starts: puncutated equilibrium, and yet he then 
talks very much in terms of gradual and continuous evolution, which 
has become taken as the defining feature of Darwinian evolution.  
Punctuated equilibrium is seen as somethiong of a heresy.


I have always felt that punctuated equilibrium was far more consistent 
with the evidence, both fossil records and from DNA, and I strongly 
suspect that it is associated with the DNA rearrangements that occur 
occasionally (I have been looking at a virus sequence where a section 
of the sequence has become inverted).
Yes you are right.  Punctuated equilibrium (ie sudden and relatively 
large changes) does match the evidence.  I am not aware of any radically 
new physical features that can be shown to have developed gradually over 
time.  If sufficient information was included in the original 
protoplasmic life form, then it is easy to imagine how accumulated 
adaptation could be designed to trigger a new physical feature to 
suddenly appear, fully formed and functional, just when where and when 
it is needed!


There was also a recent paper that shows that one of the differences 
between the hooded crow and the black crow, which can interbreed so is 
arguably a single species, is an inversion of part of the DNA 
sequence.   This will have occurred with one individual (a punctuation 
of the equilibrium), and has subsequently allowed the two crow races 
to drift away from each other, potentially leading ultimately to two 
species.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jack Cole]

Now that I have demonstrated a roughly equivalent level of light with
nitinol (comparing dry and dipped in water), I believe it invalidates the
hypothesis that there is something special going on here.  The light
intensity with nitinol was far greater than any other trial with or without
the addition of water.  So, it may well be that Dave's theory is
correct--that it is produced by higher impedance (and impedance matching
with the transformer).  I wouldn't say this invalidates Mills work, but
strongly suggests to me that we are not seeing anything special with this
portable spot welder.  I'll try some other things, and report back if there
is anything of interest.

You can see what happens with nitinol here:
http://youtu.be/KTZ6UtUpvbg

The full set of comparison photos is here:
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/

Jack

Hi Folks,

I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in
working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything
like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.

I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types
of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was
one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water,
placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright
light!

Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.

Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete darkness.


http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA

Jack

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Daniel Rocha]

There are detectors commercially available, but I think the most expensive
part is to keep this near vacuum. But, let me warn that it is likely that
all will be seen is hot fusion. What is happening is z-pinch, which is an
even older attempt than Tokamak.


2014-08-26 12:38 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil :

>  [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (janap...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule
> 
> | More info
> 
>
> It seems to me that Jack needs to find some way of objectively measuring
> light output through some sort of instrumentation. Any ideas?
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Daniel Rocha]

I just saw 1 unsubscribe. Where did you see others?

2014-08-26 15:06 GMT-03:00 :

>  [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (torulf.gr...@bredband.net) Add cleanup rule
> 
> | More info
> 
>
> Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time.
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

I just added Jojo the fairytale numpty to my spam filter I no longer see
him other than when he is mentioned in others posts.

Kind Regards walker


On 26 August 2014 21:37, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> I just saw 1 unsubscribe. Where did you see others?
>
> 2014-08-26 15:06 GMT-03:00 :
>
>>  [image: Boxbe]  This message is
>> eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (torulf.gr...@bredband.net) Add cleanup
>> rule
>> 
>> | More info
>> 
>>
>> Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

If everyone adds him to their spam filters he will disappear back in to his
own little fairytale world of utter irrelevance.

See Evolution works thank Darwin.

Kind Regards walker



On 26 August 2014 22:15, Ian Walker  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I just added Jojo the fairytale numpty to my spam filter I no longer see
> him other than when he is mentioned in others posts.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
>
> On 26 August 2014 21:37, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
>> I just saw 1 unsubscribe. Where did you see others?
>>
>> 2014-08-26 15:06 GMT-03:00 :
>>
>>>  [image: Boxbe]  This message is
>>> eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (torulf.gr...@bredband.net) Add cleanup
>>> rule
>>> 
>>> | More info
>>> 
>>>
>>> Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Chris Zell]

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

The above reports an example of a new species that emerged in modern times that 
can no longer reproduce with its parent species.  Thus, we have an unambiguous 
example of macro evolution.

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[CB Sites]

I was reading last week's Science magazine and they had an paper that talks
about the new finding that the Atlantic ocean was trapping much more heat
than expected.They conclude that the leveling out of temperature rise
is due to this.   It's a pretty compelling science finding.
What they found are that currents in the Atlantic are moving much faster
than normal and that was caused by a change in salinity from fresh water
melts.   The faster currents are pulling more of the hot surface waters
down to 1000m or more.   This gives the appearance of cooling global
temperatures and giving the stair step in land/atmosphere temperature rise.
  This current reverses every 30 years, so they expect the shelf to
continue for another 10 years after which the temperatures should rise very
quickly with a very sharp slope.   Even though it looks like we are on a
step that doesn't mean global average temperatures have stopped rising.
 It's just that they are not rising as quickly as theory predict.   Last
year was still the hottest ever recorded in the history of mankind.
http://www.climate.gov.   With the new information,  about the Atlantic
currents It shouldn't take the atmospheric modelers to long before the
models are corrected.

One concern that is related has to do with the methane clathrate found on
the Arctic sea floor.

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

As the Arctic ocean warms and warm currents circulate that heat even more,
is that it could rapidly increase methane levels.   Already scientists have
seen more and more methane seepage bubbling up from the Arctic ocean
waters.Methane has 25x the heat trapping ability that CO2 has so a
little goes a long way.   There is a lot of methane trapped on the ocean
floor that only needs a 0.1C change to make it sublimate into methane gas.
 If enough happens, it could trigger a run-away feedback loop where
methane's contribution adds more to global temperature wise, which heats
the oceans more, which sublimates more methane clathrate.  At the same
time, evaporation of surface waters will increase adding more water vapor
(also a potent greenhouse gas)  to the atmosphere.

It's something to think about.






On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an
> overall warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will
> reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over
> and over again according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt
> that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other
> natural and man made phenomena.
>
> When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have
> many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not
> heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that
> the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so
> dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this
> becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my
> attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate
> predictions without needing serious corrections every few years.
>
> We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of
> this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.
> It may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not
> subject to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might
> merely be a natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic
> driving forces.  Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and
> effect.
>
> The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will
> rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas
> releases needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our
> concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current
> conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the
> past and will find a solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific
> understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to
> us.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?
>
>  Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few
> decades to cool off the coasts.
>
>  Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster.
> Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that
> is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans
> controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the
> factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate.
>
>  If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay
> at freezing until the ice melts. When all the ic

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

[Nigel Dyer]

In answer to jwinter

To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need 
to be addressed.  The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of 
the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the 
information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled 
organisms (such as us).  There are countless examples which show how 
duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes 
can create complex proteins from simple proteins.  Indeed the 
relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can 
often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which 
closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the 
species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of 
complex variants in different plants/animals.


The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks 
about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because 
we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA, 
although there is absolute evidence that it is.   This is increasingly 
looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and 
robust way (like a hologram).  These can change and mutate and give rise 
to variations in the organism without being lethal.  A lot of the 
statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is 
based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small 
changes are frequently lethal.  The statistics for the rest of the DNA 
is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the 
evolutionary model.


So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA 
could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I 
dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont 
understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet.   However, my hunch is that 
we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding 
rules are, but that is a different topic entirely.


And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably 
shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs.


Nigel

For quite a while I have wanted to ask someone working in your field 
about what DNA has to say about evolution of species so maybe now is a 
good time.


I have almost no doubt that physical life on this planet has evolved 
from a very simple looking self-replicating organism into the plethora 
of life forms which past and present have occupied it.  But the 
mechanism by which this process occurs is still a complete mystery to 
me.  I am totally convinced (from the maths) that random processes 
cannot by any means produce the complex folding proteins that are 
needed for life - so the question is how did they arise?  Is it 
possible that the first life form (that as a minimum must have been 
implanted on this planet) could have contained in some condensed form 
sufficient information and machinery to evolve into all the life forms 
that have occurred? Or is it necessary that some additional injection 
or meddling was necessary along the way?


For instance, as I understand it, the frog was one of the first 
creatures to invade the land from the sea and all land vertebrates 
evolved from the frog.  So one question would be, is there sufficient 
information in the DNA of a frog, to have the potential of developing 
(by pre-designed but natural means) into all the land animals that 
have occurred (and of course the sea mammals)? Or is it necessary to 
postulate some other source of DNA information which needs to be added 
to the limited information available in frog DNA?


So my question is really this:-  From your knowledge of the DNA 
content of various life forms (and assuming the so-called "junk" DNA 
between gene coding regions actually contains useful information for 
possible future evolution), is there sufficient information in the DNA 
of simpler looking life forms to allow them to evolve into the more 
complex types, or does information need to be added?

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Bob Higgins]

Jack,

You are on the verge of the LENR precipice - where you dive off into the
meat of the phenomenon.  What you are seeing is that it is hard to discover
whether anything special has been achieved.  How do you whether something
special has happened?  Well, you need to measure the energy balance.  Only
if you measure more energy out than is put into the reaction with
electrical power and chemical enthalpy, did something special happen.  A
big flash doesn't tell you anything.  A flashbulb can be ignited with an AA
battery and will make a very bright flash - due to the chemical energy of
the burning metal.  This spot welder will create a plasma hot enough to
ignite many metals and when you put the water there it dissociates to
provide a high concentration of O2 - you get the chemical effect of the
burning metal.

Mills claims that his metal host is not burned and is re-usable.  That must
be a really refractory metal to not burn at plasma temperatures.  Let's say
that he is correct.  The plasma still dissociates the H2O into H, O, OH,
H2, and O2 and these will re-combine within the ejecta creating a hydrogen
flash which will be very hot and bright.  Did he produce over-unity?  I
wasn't convinced by what I saw that he showed.

Jumping over the precipice, you will need to use one of the big copper arms
as a current shunt.  Connect a lead across two points on one arm.  Use
another calibrated source to run X known amps (lets say 10A) of current
across the two points and see what voltage you get out.  Calculate the
shunt resistance as a calibration factor.  Now you can use a digital
storage oscilloscope to measure the differential voltage and capture the
current waveshape.  Next you need an oscilloscope connection across the two
arms to simulaneously (with the current measurement) measure the voltage
across the contacts - the connections don't have to be super close to the
contacts because the voltage drop across the big conductors will be small.
 Then you can capture the voltage waveform.  I don't think it will exceed
50V.  To test, you can put a diode to capacitor across the gap and capture
the peak voltage to know what you will need to protect against.  You will
need the simultaneous voltage and current waveform to calculate the input
energy.  There are other ways to do this, but this provides a lot of
information.

So how do you measure the power out?  You can build a water calorimeter.
 In fact, you could fire the whole thing inside high resistance deionized
water which would do a pretty good job of capturing all of the heat.  You
would need to put a blackened piece of pipe around it in the water to
capture the light and thermalize it into the water.  If you embed the
electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be able to avoid most of
the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes.  Calculate heat by
temperature rise of the water.  With practice, you will be able to measure
the joules (energy) in and joules out from heat rise.  You will need to
stir the water and measure the water in multiple points.  You will need an
insulated container.

Either that, our you need to be good at telling stories about the big fish
that got away (is this Mills?).

BTW, I applaud your efforts.

Bob Higgins


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Now that I have demonstrated a roughly equivalent level of light with
> nitinol (comparing dry and dipped in water), I believe it invalidates the
> hypothesis that there is something special going on here.  The light
> intensity with nitinol was far greater than any other trial with or without
> the addition of water.  So, it may well be that Dave's theory is
> correct--that it is produced by higher impedance (and impedance matching
> with the transformer).  I wouldn't say this invalidates Mills work, but
> strongly suggests to me that we are not seeing anything special with this
> portable spot welder.  I'll try some other things, and report back if there
> is anything of interest.
>
> You can see what happens with nitinol here:
> http://youtu.be/KTZ6UtUpvbg
>
> The full set of comparison photos is here:
> http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/
>
> Jack
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was in
> working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything
> like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.
>
> I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types
> of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was
> one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water,
> placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright
> light!
>
> Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
>
> Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete
> darkness.
>
> http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
>
> Jack
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

Dave, you have a valid argument.

However, it might also be possible that constantan is a material able to 
catalyze an LENR (maybe hydrino transition) reaction more, hence, it would 
naturally be disintegrated in its own reaction.

It is critical that we be able to measure input power to rule out your 
argument.  Any Ideas on how to measure input power accurately?



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Note that the constantan wire disintegrated during the test.  The implication 
is that much more energy was deposited into it than in the other cases.  This 
supports the proposition that some form of impedance matching is taking place 
since the impedance of constantan is much greater than copper.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:06 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Thanks Jojo.
  I use the same piece of wire for the control and experimental. The only 
difference is dipping in water (and any changes related to running the current 
through the wire on the control run).
  The constantan wire disintegrated on the last experimental trial.
  On Aug 26, 2014 10:38 AM, "Jojo Iznart"  wrote:

That's some good work Jack.

Are the wire diameters and lengths the same?

If so, these evidences are very compelling to me.  Randy may truly be on to 
something.




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It does look more intense.  I also got to thinking that the electrodes 
could have condensation on them, thus producing a little bit of the effect.  
After I wiped them down and did another control run with electrodes only, there 
was very little spark/light.  One attempt after wiping the electrodes, produced 
no spark. 


  Also, the control with the wire only picks up moisture from my fingers.  
I'll have to figure out a way to place it to minimize that.


  I tried a new run with constantan wire.  It was the most intense light 
yet.  See the picture at the bottom of the post.


  http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/




  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense.  Could it just 
be a trick of the camera?  Does it really look more intense in person?

If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something 
Bummer.

For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology 
may be real, it is pictures like these that convince me.  How do you explain 
more intense sparking when dipped in water.  There appears to be no chemical 
explanation for this.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Jojo, 


  I'll see if I can accomplish that.  In the meantime, here are the 
results of testing.


  http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/



  We do get sparks without dipping in water.  The last two are after 
dipping in water.  What do you think--more intense?


  Jack





  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a 
small pellet with water.  This should be the quintessential Mill's fuel pellet. 
 See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Yes, I was planning to do that.  I'll make a video of each test 
case.  I'll try with just the electrodes, with the copper wire only, and then 
dip it in water. 


  I'm also planning to try with titanium.  It will take a little 
work to get a small enough piece of that cut.


  I'm also going to try a small piece of metal with a little 
impression drilled into it so I can place water into the impression.  Then I'll 
set the electrode into the impression where the water is.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Jojo Iznart 
 wrote:

could you try copper wire without dipping in water and also 
with nothing at all. - no copper wire, just the electrodes.  These would be 
your controls.  to compare it with samples with water.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  Fr

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

If you measure before the input side, you have to minus the base load of the 
transformer (its losses).  Then you can run the spark and see if your 
instruments are sensitive enough to register a fast power spike.  Then you have 
to integrate the chart to compute energy.  I believe this is what BLP did, 
hence this technique is open to criticism as erroneous.  The only way to 
absolutely prove overunity is to close the loop.

Any ideas on how to accurately measure Input Power from the group?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:27 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  I don't know how to measure the input power.  We're talking 2-5V and 
3000-4000 amps.  I'd be scared to hook my oscilloscope up to it.  You could 
maybe do it on the supply side from the 110AC with a watt meter, but that would 
be the power going in to the transformer.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

Dave, 

A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the 
impedance that much.  Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light 
output.  There appears to be something going on here.

Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you are 
performing the tests. 

The output power can be measured with a small solar panel.

That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on how to measure input power?  
Other than a watthour meter, I'm out.  Although I doubt a common watthour meter 
would be sensitive enough.  Another option is an oscilloscope on the electrodes.





Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the 
conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out at 
the pellet?  This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising enough 
thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.

  A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that 
will result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.   What 
I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance to 
get the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open or short will have 
zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero condition with copper only and 
a much better power match with the water film.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put 
between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that 
managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Cole 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Hi Folks,
  I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was 
in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything 
like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.  
  I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for 
types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper 
was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, 
placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! 
  Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
  Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete 
darkness.  
  http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
  Jack

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

Well, we are testing the theory that Randy is proposing. In that theory, the 
water should split to H atoms which would then undergo a hydrino transition in 
the presence of a catalyst (the wire in Jack' case; powder in Mill's case).  
This is what we are ruling out.

Can you explain the origin of the more intense spark in the presence of a thin 
film of water.  You're argument of impedance change is valid; though I tend to 
think it is irrelevant given the small change a thin film of water would 
contribute.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It is the initial contact point that I am thinking about Jojo.  The water in 
that immediate path should rapidly turn into gas or plasma due to the energy 
deposited into it.  If the water does not matter then why would we expect it to 
contribute to the spark?  I suppose the real question is how thick is the film 
of water and how does it affect the voltage/current waveforms across the large 
contactors?

  I believe that it will take a very good voltage and current measurement 
system to get to the bottom of this issue.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Jojo Iznart 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:18 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Dave, 

  A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the impedance 
that much.  Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light output.  There 
appears to be something going on here.

  Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you are 
performing the tests. 

  The output power can be measured with a small solar panel.

  That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on how to measure input power?  Other 
than a watthour meter, I'm out.  Although I doubt a common watthour meter would 
be sensitive enough.  Another option is an oscilloscope on the electrodes.





  Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the 
conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out at 
the pellet?  This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising enough 
thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low value.

A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will 
result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.   What I am 
describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance to get 
the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open or short will have 
zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero condition with copper only and 
a much better power match with the water film.

Dave







-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put 
between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that 
managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

  was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?


  Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM
Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


Hi Folks,
I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was 
in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything 
like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the first try.  
I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for 
types of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper 
was one of them.  I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, 
placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright light! 
Here's a link to the vid.  Sorry for the bad camera work.
Let me know what you think.  I'll do another vid soon in complete 
darkness.  
http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA
Jack

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

We used to think that mating and reproduction is the criteria to judge that the 
offspring is a new "species", but I don't think that is a valid argument.  We 
see cases everyday in humans wherein an offspring is so genetically deformed 
that it can not reproduce and yet it is still human.  Failure to mate and 
reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution 
event.

I do not believe  this reproduction criteria is valid.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:21 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where 
a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share 
genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members.

  My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that 
they can still breed together.  I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise.

  Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two 
different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about).

  I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate 
among themselves but do not bear young as a result.  I do not keep up with such 
statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and 
can enlighten us.  If these different mating species have the same number of 
chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species.  At least 
this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it 
can be found.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Sunil Shah 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  I really don't know if "new diseases" counts as an example of evolution to 
you,
  but a quick search came up with this
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/

  A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm

  I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it
  carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)

  But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading 
"species"
  (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the "new diseases" 
suggestion.

  /Sunil




--
  From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
  Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800


  Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of 
books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example.

  Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one 
species change into another.  JUST ONE...



  Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


Jojo Iznart  wrote:


  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

  I have a simple question:

  1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? 


There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian 
evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like 
questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease.


I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this 
level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and 
micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious 
creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic 
deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just 
as a trick to fool us.


If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't 
annoy people who know the subject.


I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have 
learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about 
evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to 
educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of 
thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no 
chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain 
it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. 
Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or 
wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

[Jojo Iznart]

In my previous existence here, Nigel and I engaged is quite a long 
discussion about evolution.  We did it offline.  At that time, I asked Nigel 
to provide evidence of what he considers to be "clear" proof of evolution. 
I don't believe he has satisfied that criteria.


So, now, I would like to ask Nigel to provide the group with his best proof 
(genetic or otherwise) of evolution happenning.  Not speculation of "maybe 
this", "maybe that", "this should happen", "that should happen" ...etc. 
Just clear simple proof of evolution that is observable.


You see, sometimes many highly qualified people would infer from the data 
their interpretation of what the data means.  This is what Nigel is doing. 
He is inferring that the genetic data "appears" to match Darwinian Evolution 
Theory.  But Folks, we need to be circumspect enough to separate the fact 
from its interpretation.  The fact is the fact, but interpretation of what 
that fact infers is just an opinion.




Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: "Nigel Dyer" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium



In answer to jwinter

To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need to 
be addressed.  The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of the 
complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the 
information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled 
organisms (such as us).  There are countless examples which show how 
duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes 
can create complex proteins from simple proteins.  Indeed the relationship 
between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can often be used to 
produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which closely mirrors the 
accepted evolutionary relationship between the species, and shows how a 
simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of complex variants in 
different plants/animals.


The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks 
about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because we 
still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA, 
although there is absolute evidence that it is.   This is increasingly 
looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and 
robust way (like a hologram).  These can change and mutate and give rise 
to variations in the organism without being lethal.  A lot of the 
statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is 
based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small 
changes are frequently lethal.  The statistics for the rest of the DNA is 
completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the 
evolutionary model.


So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA 
could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I dont 
think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont understand the 
'junk DNA' coding rules yet.   However, my hunch is that we are in for a 
big surprise when we finally work out what the coding rules are, but that 
is a different topic entirely.


And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably 
shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs.


Nigel

For quite a while I have wanted to ask someone working in your field 
about what DNA has to say about evolution of species so maybe now is a 
good time.


I have almost no doubt that physical life on this planet has evolved from 
a very simple looking self-replicating organism into the plethora of life 
forms which past and present have occupied it.  But the mechanism by 
which this process occurs is still a complete mystery to me.  I am 
totally convinced (from the maths) that random processes cannot by any 
means produce the complex folding proteins that are needed for life - so 
the question is how did they arise?  Is it possible that the first life 
form (that as a minimum must have been implanted on this planet) could 
have contained in some condensed form sufficient information and 
machinery to evolve into all the life forms that have occurred? Or is it 
necessary that some additional injection or meddling was necessary along 
the way?


For instance, as I understand it, the frog was one of the first creatures 
to invade the land from the sea and all land vertebrates evolved from the 
frog.  So one question would be, is there sufficient information in the 
DNA of a frog, to have the potential of developing (by pre-designed but 
natural means) into all the land animals that have occurred (and of 
course the sea mammals)? Or is it necessary to postulate some other 
source of DNA information which needs to be added to the limited 
information available in frog DNA?


So my question is really this:-  From your knowledge of the DNA content 
of various life forms (and assuming the so-called "junk" DNA between gene 
coding regions actual

RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jojo:

 

> Well, science is supposed to be "observable" and "repeatable". That implies

> a timeframe within our lifetimes. If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, 
> it's

> not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you to 
> believe.

 

I think I see where the confusion might lie. I can also see why you might think 
evolution isn’t following proper scientific protocol. Regarding proper 
scientific protocol, I certainly hope the length of time involved for evolution 
to be observed has been made abundantly clear in previous posts. Otherwise, the 
rest of what this post will attempt to touch on, I fear, will be considered 
garbage.

 

But you are right in a sense. Concerning evolution, we are not talking 
“science”. We are instead talking “theory”. Evolution is described as a theory, 
but a pretty convincing theory, at least from my POV. It’s called a theory 
because there is no way we know how to practically assemble a scientific 
experiment that could document evolution occurring considering the extremely 
short time-frames scientific experiments have to be conducted within. A real 
authentic scientific experiment would have to be conducted over hundreds of 
thousands of years. Millions of years would be better. I doubt humans would 
ever get around to funding something that would take that much time. We tend to 
be an impatient species. Not enuf of an immediate Return-On-Investment (ROI). 
But then, for Mr. or Mrs. God - a million years here… a million there… it’s 
probably nothing more than a flick of a majestic eyelash! I tend to imagine 
God’s ROI, as something akin to “Oh! Cool! That’s interesting. What If I try… 
THIS!” Thus, God throws the dice again, and again. But then, I freely admit, 
that’s just my personal interpretation of how the Grand Scheme of Things tends 
to play out over an eternity of time. ;-)

 

What are your thoughts about certain fossil records that seem to indicate what 
present-day horses may have come from? What did their ancestors possibly look 
like starting about 30 million years ago? What happened to those little 
creatures in-between the time-frames of 30 million years ago up to today?

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse

 

What do you personally believe is happening here?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[CB Sites]

 Jojo says "Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem,
not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event."
Oh is that why your not getting any?  Hahaha.




On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  We used to think that mating and reproduction is the criteria to judge
> that the offspring is a new "species", but I don't think that is a valid
> argument.  We see cases everyday in humans wherein an offspring is so
> genetically deformed that it can not reproduce and yet it is still human.
> Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not
> demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event.
>
> I do not believe  this reproduction criteria is valid.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:21 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
>
> Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case
> where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer
> share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its
> new members.
>
> My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe
> that they can still breed together.  I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise.
>
> Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two
> different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read
> about).
>
> I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that
> mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result.  I do not keep up
> with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the
> subject and can enlighten us.  If these different mating species have the
> same number of chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor
> species.  At least this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of
> current evolution if it can be found.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sunil Shah 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
>
>  I really don't know if "new diseases" counts as an example of evolution
> to you,
> but a quick search came up with this
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/
>
> A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm
>
> I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact
> that it
> carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)
>
> But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading
> "species"
> (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the "new
> diseases" suggestion.
>
> /Sunil
>
>
>  --
> From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800
>
> Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, and there are thousands
> of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example.
>
> Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one
> species change into another.  JUST ONE...
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
>
>  Jojo Iznart  wrote:
>
>  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
>
> I have a simple question:
>
> 1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?
>
>
> There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian
> evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly
> like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes
> disease.
>
> I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this
> level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro-
> and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of
> religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God
> as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of
> evolution just as a trick to fool us.
>
> If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't
> annoy people who know the subject.
>
> I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have
> learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions
> about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time
> trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how
> the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and
> energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste
> of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion,
> including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's
> guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your ch

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[Axil Axil]

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html

No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to
adapt.

Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern
United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and
the chances of a "megadrought" – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges
from 20 to 50 percent over the next century.

The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey
researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American
Meteorological Society's *Journal of Climate*.

"For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real
megadroughts," said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and
atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. "As we add greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping this
– we are weighting the dice for megadrought."


 Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation strategies
to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. "This will be worse than
anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented
challenges to water resources in the region," he said.




On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an
> overall warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will
> reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over
> and over again according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt
> that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other
> natural and man made phenomena.
>
> When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have
> many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not
> heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that
> the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so
> dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this
> becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my
> attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate
> predictions without needing serious corrections every few years.
>
> We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of
> this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.
> It may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not
> subject to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might
> merely be a natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic
> driving forces.  Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and
> effect.
>
> The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will
> rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas
> releases needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our
> concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current
> conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the
> past and will find a solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific
> understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to
> us.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?
>
>  Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few
> decades to cool off the coasts.
>
>  Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster.
> Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that
> is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans
> controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the
> factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate.
>
>  If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay
> at freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will
> begin to heat on its way to boiling.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> Please note that I pointed out that* I *have not seen one graph
>> predicting the long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every
>> single model output since that would be a useless exercise.
>>
>> Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry
>> the most weight and they show no pause.  I assume that the next versions of
>> their models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit
>> that this is hindsight and not prediction as such.  When will the next
>> major error be uncovered?  Are you 100% confident that we will not be
>> entering into a cooling period during the next 20 years?
>>
>> I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor
>> performance of a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage
>> to our standard of living.   They are merely high priests of a ne

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected 
bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution.  These accelerated 
trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection.  And 
yet, what did we find?  We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the 
stress but yet remained the same bacteria.  This is micro-evolution, not 
macro-evolution.  The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits 
already built into its DNA.  No mutation.  

In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to 
penicilin.  That is adaptation,no macro evolution.  In the end, E. Coli was 
still E. Coli.  the same bacteria.  No species jump.  It did not become some 
other kind of mold or something.

And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then 
reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again.  Natural 
selection was clearly not operative here.

Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:31 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  From Jojo:

   

  > Well, science is supposed to be "observable" and "repeatable". That implies

  > a timeframe within our lifetimes. If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, 
it's

  > not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you to 
believe.

   

  I think I see where the confusion might lie. I can also see why you might 
think evolution isn’t following proper scientific protocol. Regarding proper 
scientific protocol, I certainly hope the length of time involved for evolution 
to be observed has been made abundantly clear in previous posts. Otherwise, the 
rest of what this post will attempt to touch on, I fear, will be considered 
garbage.

   

  But you are right in a sense. Concerning evolution, we are not talking 
“science”. We are instead talking “theory”. Evolution is described as a theory, 
but a pretty convincing theory, at least from my POV. It’s called a theory 
because there is no way we know how to practically assemble a scientific 
experiment that could document evolution occurring considering the extremely 
short time-frames scientific experiments have to be conducted within. A real 
authentic scientific experiment would have to be conducted over hundreds of 
thousands of years. Millions of years would be better. I doubt humans would 
ever get around to funding something that would take that much time. We tend to 
be an impatient species. Not enuf of an immediate Return-On-Investment (ROI). 
But then, for Mr. or Mrs. God - a million years here… a million there… it’s 
probably nothing more than a flick of a majestic eyelash! I tend to imagine 
God’s ROI, as something akin to “Oh! Cool! That’s interesting. What If I try… 
THIS!” Thus, God throws the dice again, and again. But then, I freely admit, 
that’s just my personal interpretation of how the Grand Scheme of Things tends 
to play out over an eternity of time. ;-)

   

  What are your thoughts about certain fossil records that seem to indicate 
what present-day horses may have come from? What did their ancestors possibly 
look like starting about 30 million years ago? What happened to those little 
creatures in-between the time-frames of 30 million years ago up to today?

   

  
http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse

   

  What do you personally believe is happening here?

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  svjart.orionworks.com

  zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

This is how I know I am winning the argument.  When people resort to mockery 
and insults.

But, my friend, have at it.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: CB Sites 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


   Jojo says "Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not 
demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event."  

  Oh is that why your not getting any?  Hahaha.







  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

We used to think that mating and reproduction is the criteria to judge that 
the offspring is a new "species", but I don't think that is a valid argument.  
We see cases everyday in humans wherein an offspring is so genetically deformed 
that it can not reproduce and yet it is still human.  Failure to mate and 
reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution 
event.

I do not believe  this reproduction criteria is valid.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:21 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case 
where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer 
share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new 
members.

  My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe 
that they can still breed together.  I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise.

  Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of 
two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read 
about).

  I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that 
mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result.  I do not keep up with 
such statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject 
and can enlighten us.  If these different mating species have the same number 
of chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species.  At 
least this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if 
it can be found.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Sunil Shah 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  I really don't know if "new diseases" counts as an example of evolution 
to you,
  but a quick search came up with this
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/

  A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm

  I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact 
that it
  carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)

  But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading 
"species"
  (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the "new 
diseases" suggestion.

  /Sunil




--
  From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
  Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800


  Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, and there are thousands 
of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example.

  Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see 
one species change into another.  JUST ONE...



  Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


Jojo Iznart  wrote:


  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

  I have a simple question:

  1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? 


There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian 
evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like 
questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease.


I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this 
level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and 
micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious 
creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic 
deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just 
as a trick to fool us.


If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. 
Don't annoy people who know the subject.


I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should 
have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions 
about evolution that you make is beyond m

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[Jojo Iznart]

Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the 
northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little agriculture in 
the Southwest so impact of a "megadrought" would be minimal to the US food 
security picture.

Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for 
humanity.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


  http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html


  No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to 
adapt. 


  Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern United 
States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and the 
chances of a "megadrought" – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges from 20 to 
50 percent over the next century. 


  The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey 
researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American 
Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.

  "For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real 
megadroughts," said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and 
atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. "As we add greenhouse gases 
into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping this – we are 
weighting the dice for megadrought."



   Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation strategies to 
cope with looming long-drought scenarios. "This will be worse than anything 
seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented challenges to 
water resources in the region," he said.

   



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an overall 
warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will reverse and we 
will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over and over again 
according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt that polar ice 
contributes to the process along with countless other natural and man made 
phenomena.

When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have 
many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not 
heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that the 
current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so 
dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this becomes a 
rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my attention at that 
point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate predictions without 
needing serious corrections every few years.

We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands of 
this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.  It 
may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not subject 
to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might merely be a 
natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic driving forces.  
Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and effect.

The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will rapidly 
reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas releases 
needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our concerns about 
what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current conditions and 
realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the past and will find a 
solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific understanding that will 
develop during that period will appear as magic to us. 

Dave 





-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 

To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few 
decades to cool off the coasts. 


Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster. 
Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that is 
when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans controls the 
temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the factor that 
introduces the oscillations in the climate.


If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay at 
freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will begin to 
heat on its way to boiling. 



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

  Please note that I pointed out that I have not seen one graph predicting 
the long term pause.   Of course I have not reviewed every single model output 
since that would be a useless exercise.

  Which predictions should we depend upon?  Those of the IPCC likely carry 
the most weight and they show no pause.  I assume that the next ve

RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

From: Jojo

 

> Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we

> subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. 

> These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years

> of natural selection.  And yet, what did we find?  We find that the 

> bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same

> bacteria.  This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.  The bacteria

> was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA.

> No mutation.  

> 

> In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained

> resistance to penicilin.  That is adaptation,no macro evolution.  In

> the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli.  the same bacteria.  No species

> jump.  It did not become some other kind of mold or something.

> 

> And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population

> then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. 

> Natural selection was clearly not operative here.

> 

> Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on

> people.

 

Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous 
post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know 
how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular 
experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe 
evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. 
It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. 
There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with 
each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange 
of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, 
crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively.  I would like to see 
an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple 
animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures. They are simple 
animals but complex multi-cellular organisms nevertheless. But if you split 
them part way down the middle down their length starting with the head they 
will eventually split apart completely and become two individuated worms. You 
wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal organism would be capable of 
doing that, not after they have been hatched! Alas, I'm not sure this kind of 
an experiment would work because of the time frames involved. It would have to 
take decades of persistent research in order to possibly notice if we could 
eventually create a new species of worm that is incapable of sexually 
reproducing with the original organism. See:

 

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

 

. . .

 

In the meantime, I'd still like your opinion on what you think is happening 
concerning what the text below reveals as an example of the evolution of horses 
starting 30 million years ago.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse

 

What do you personally believe is happening here?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[CB Sites]

Jojo said: "Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast
tracts of the northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little
agriculture in the Southwest so impact of a "megadrought" would be minimal
to the US food security picture.

Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for
humanity."

Unlikely this will be a plus for Humanity.  More like a tragedy as nothing
will grow, and place that do get rain will get too much of it.



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the
> northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little agriculture
> in the Southwest so impact of a "megadrought" would be minimal to the US
> food security picture.
>
> Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for
> humanity.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:48 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:global warming?
>
>  http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html
>
> No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to
> adapt.
>
> Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern
> United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and
> the chances of a "megadrought" – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges
> from 20 to 50 percent over the next century.
>
>  The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey
> researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American
> Meteorological Society's *Journal of Climate*.
>
> "For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real
> megadroughts," said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and
> atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. "As we add greenhouse
> gases into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping
> this – we are weighting the dice for megadrought."
>
>
>  Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation
> strategies to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. "This will be worse
> than anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented
> challenges to water resources in the region," he said.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an
>> overall warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will
>> reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over
>> and over again according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt
>> that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other
>> natural and man made phenomena.
>>
>> When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have
>> many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not
>> heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that
>> the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so
>> dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this
>> becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my
>> attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate
>> predictions without needing serious corrections every few years.
>>
>> We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands
>> of this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be
>> trustworthy.  It may well turn out that what they are attempting is
>> intractable and not subject to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be
>> caused by man might merely be a natural consequence of the earths response
>> to solar and cosmic driving forces.  Sometimes it is very difficult to
>> separate cause and effect.
>>
>> The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will
>> rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas
>> releases needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our
>> concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current
>> conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the
>> past and will find a solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific
>> understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to
>> us.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>>  To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?
>>
>>  Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few
>> decades to cool off the coasts.
>>
>> Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of disaster.
>> Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, that
>> is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the oceans
>> controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice is the
>> factor that in

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

[Jojo Iznart]

Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution.  If 
Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly.  Why?  
Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival 
advantage.

If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible 
for it to generate a trait.  This task is more difficult and will occur at less 
probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution.

Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago.  I have a 
video for that but it is long.  Horse evolution discussion starts at time 
41:26.  It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  From: Jojo

   

  > Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we

  > subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. 

  > These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years

  > of natural selection.  And yet, what did we find?  We find that the 

  > bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same

  > bacteria.  This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.  The bacteria

  > was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA.

  > No mutation.  

  > 

  > In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained

  > resistance to penicilin.  That is adaptation,no macro evolution.  In

  > the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli.  the same bacteria.  No species

  > jump.  It did not become some other kind of mold or something.

  > 

  > And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population

  > then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. 

  > Natural selection was clearly not operative here.

  > 

  > Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on

  > people.

   

  Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous 
post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know 
how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular 
experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe 
evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. 
It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. 
There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with 
each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange 
of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, 
crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively.  I would like to see 
an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple 
animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures. They are simple 
animals but complex multi-cellular organisms nevertheless. But if you split 
them part way down the middle down their length starting with the head they 
will eventually split apart completely and become two individuated worms. You 
wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal organism would be capable of 
doing that, not after they have been hatched! Alas, I'm not sure this kind of 
an experiment would work because of the time frames involved. It would have to 
take decades of persistent research in order to possibly notice if we could 
eventually create a new species of worm that is incapable of sexually 
reproducing with the original organism. See:

   

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

   

  . . .

   

  In the meantime, I'd still like your opinion on what you think is happening 
concerning what the text below reveals as an example of the evolution of horses 
starting 30 million years ago.

   

  
http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse

   

  What do you personally believe is happening here?

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  svjart.orionworks.com

  zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[David Roberson]

I saw where that Atlantic current is the assumed reason for the pause and it 
might actually be the culprit.  The climatologists also had a number of other 
possible factors that they were considering before they finally chose that 
particular one.  Does it not concern you that this factor was just now 
discovered?  Surely a really good model of the climate system would have 
included that factor previously while at the same time these guys were making 
claims that they had great confidence in their earlier predictions.
 
This type of situation is the root of my skeptical feeling toward them.   On 
several occasions, of which this is the latest, the models have been found to 
fail to take into consideration very important factors that were later added 
when the predictions did not match the measurements.  I can only assume that 
there are several, or perhaps many other factors that are waiting for an 
opportunity to appear.  This likely will occur a number of times in the next 
100 years as the models continue to make erroneous predictions.  

It is entirely possible that these guys now have a perfect model but only 
sufficient time will prove that is true.  How can we make laws that encumber 
our industries and lives based upon this type of prediction that may likely 
prove grossly inaccurate?  In my opinion it would be much wiser to wait until 
the models really show good performance before we act.  That will take at least 
a 10 year wait to begin to demonstrate accurate predictions versus merely curve 
fitting old data.  Besides, the model makers now claim that it will likely be 
11 years before the heating spell returns.  The actual turn around point is not 
known or predicted with confidence at this time.  A throw of dice is about that 
accurate.

I would truly love to have faith in those predictive models to make our tough 
decisions easier to swallow.   Unfortunately, that is a luxury that is not 
available to me and I would hope that others realize that the models do not 
deserve our respect considering their track record.  In time I am confident 
that they will improve, but there is no guarantee that they can ever do a super 
job of predicting a system with the complexity of our climate.  Only time can 
answer that question.

I wonder if these guys are being more humble now that they have been shown to 
have serious errors in their models?  If not, then the problem will not go away 
without finding a new set of actors.

It is not fun being a skeptic and taking all the heat from the more trusting 
guys on this list, but I find it cowardly to silently sit by and accept what I 
consider wrong.

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: CB Sites 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


I was reading last week's Science magazine and they had an paper that talks 
about the new finding that the Atlantic ocean was trapping much more heat than 
expected.They conclude that the leveling out of temperature rise is due to 
this.   It's a pretty compelling science finding. 
What they found are that currents in the Atlantic are moving much faster than 
normal and that was caused by a change in salinity from fresh water melts.   
The faster currents are pulling more of the hot surface waters down to 1000m or 
more.   This gives the appearance of cooling global temperatures and giving the 
stair step in land/atmosphere temperature rise.   This current reverses every 
30 years, so they expect the shelf to continue for another 10 years after which 
the temperatures should rise very quickly with a very sharp slope.   Even 
though it looks like we are on a step that doesn't mean global average 
temperatures have stopped rising.  It's just that they are not rising as 
quickly as theory predict.   Last year was still the hottest ever recorded in 
the history of mankind.   http://www.climate.gov.   With the new information,  
about the Atlantic currents It shouldn't take the atmospheric modelers to long 
before the models are corrected.  


One concern that is related has to do with the methane clathrate found on the 
Arctic sea floor.


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



As the Arctic ocean warms and warm currents circulate that heat even more, is 
that it could rapidly increase methane levels.   Already scientists have seen 
more and more methane seepage bubbling up from the Arctic ocean waters.
Methane has 25x the heat trapping ability that CO2 has so a little goes a long 
way.   There is a lot of methane trapped on the ocean floor that only needs a 
0.1C change to make it sublimate into methane gas.  If enough happens, it could 
trigger a run-away feedback loop where methane's contribution adds more to 
global temperature wise, which heats the oceans more, which sublimates more 
methane clathrate.  At the same time, evaporation of surface waters will 
increase adding more water vapor (also a potent greenhouse gas)  to the 
atmosphere.   


It's somethi

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be able
> to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes.
>

Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the hazards
of submerging the electrodes of a spot welder and then turning it on?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[David Roberson]

Bob just generated a fairly good description of what it will takes to determine 
the input and output energy.  Refer to his posting.  We can discuss more 
details if needed, but that is an excellent beginning.
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jojo Iznart 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt



Dave, you have a valid argument.
 
However, it might also be possible that constantan is a material able to 
catalyze an LENR (maybe hydrino transition) reaction more, hence, it would 
naturally be disintegrated in its own reaction.
 
It is critical that we be able to measure input power to rule out your 
argument.  Any Ideas on how to measure input power accurately?
 
 
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:52   AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


Note that the   constantan wire disintegrated during the test.  The implication 
is that   much more energy was deposited into it than in the other cases.  This 
  supports the proposition that some form of impedance matching is taking place 
  since the impedance of constantan is much greater than   copper.

Dave
  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:06 pm
Subject:   Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

  
  
Thanks Jojo.
  
I use the same piece of wire for the control and experimental.   The only 
difference is dipping in water (and any changes related to running   the 
current through the wire on the control run).
  
The constantan wire disintegrated on the last experimental   trial.
  
On Aug 26, 2014 10:38 AM, "Jojo Iznart"  wrote:
  


That's some good work Jack.

 

Are the wire diameters and lengths the same?

 

If so, these evidences are very compelling to me.  Randy may truly be on to 
something.

 

 

 

 

Jojo

 

 

  
- Original Message - 
  
From: Jack Cole   
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:31   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


  
It does look more intense.  I also got to thinking that   the electrodes 
could have condensation on them, thus producing a little   bit of the 
effect.  After I wiped them down and did another control   run with 
electrodes only, there was very little spark/light.  One   attempt after 
wiping the electrodes, produced no spark.   


  
Also, the control with the wire only picks up moisture from my   fingers.  
I'll have to figure out a way to place it to minimize   that.
  


  
I tried a new run with constantan wire.  It was the most intense   light 
yet.  See the picture at the bottom of the post.
  


  
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/

  


  
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Iznart
wrote:
  


Yeah, looks like the last two are indeed more intense.  Could it just 
be a trick of the camera?  Does it really look more intense in person?

 

If it is indeed more intense, I think Randy may have something 
Bummer.

 

For those people who don't understand why I feel the Suncell technology 
may be real, it is pictures like these that convince me.  How do you 
explain more intense sparking when dipped in water.  There appears to 
be no chemical explanation for this.

 

 

Jojo

 

 

  
  
- Original Message - 
  
From: Jack Cole   
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
  
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014   8:39 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell -   Initial Replication Attempt
  


  
Jojo,   


  
I'll see if I can accomplish that.  In the meantime, here   are the 
results of testing.
  


  
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/

  


  
We do get sparks without dipping in water.  The last two are   after 
dipping in water.  What do you think--more intense?
  


  
Jack
  


  


  
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Jojo Iznart
  wrote:
  


consider grinding a titanium bar into powder and then forming a 
small pellet with water.  This should be the quintessential Mill's 
fuel pellet.  See if the spark is as intense as Mill's suncell.

 

 

Jojo

 

 

  
  
- Original Message - 
 

Re: [Vo]:global warming?

[Jojo Iznart]

CB, I still don't understand your contention. 

A Delta T of 6C would cause all plant life to die?  Is this what you are saying?



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: CB Sites 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:30 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


  Jojo said: "Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts 
of the northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little 
agriculture in the Southwest so impact of a "megadrought" would be minimal to 
the US food security picture.

  Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for 
humanity."


  Unlikely this will be a plus for Humanity.  More like a tragedy as nothing 
will grow, and place that do get rain will get too much of it.





  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

Even if this were true, the same events would open up vast tracts of the 
northern American Continent for agriculture.  There is little agriculture in 
the Southwest so impact of a "megadrought" would be minimal to the US food 
security picture.

Even considering your worst case scenario. it is still a plus overall for 
humanity.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


  http://phys.org/news/2014-08-southwest-megadrought-century.html


  No matter how it is caused, the residences of the west coast will need to 
adapt. 


  Due to global warming, scientists say, the chances of the southwestern 
United States experiencing a decadelong drought is at least 50 percent, and the 
chances of a "megadrought" – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges from 20 to 
50 percent over the next century. 


  The study by Cornell, University of Arizona and U.S. Geological Survey 
researchers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American 
Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.

  "For the southwestern U.S., I'm not optimistic about avoiding real 
megadroughts," said Toby Ault, Cornell assistant professor of earth and 
atmospheric sciences and lead author of the paper. "As we add greenhouse gases 
into the atmosphere – and we haven't put the brakes on stopping this – we are 
weighting the dice for megadrought."



   Ault said that the West and Southwest must look for mitigation 
strategies to cope with looming long-drought scenarios. "This will be worse 
than anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented 
challenges to water resources in the region," he said.

   



  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson  
wrote:

Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an 
overall warming cycle.   We can be fairly confident that one day it will 
reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over and 
over again according to the best historical measurements.  No doubt that polar 
ice contributes to the process along with countless other natural and man made 
phenomena.

When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we 
have many years before that devastating event comes upon us.  So far I have not 
heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that the 
current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so 
dangerous to our existence.   It is only a matter of time before this becomes a 
rallying cry of that group of alarmists.  They will get my attention at that 
point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate predictions without 
needing serious corrections every few years.

We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands 
of this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be trustworthy.  
It may well turn out that what they are attempting is intractable and not 
subject to accurate modeling.   What they contend to be caused by man might 
merely be a natural consequence of the earths response to solar and cosmic 
driving forces.  Sometimes it is very difficult to separate cause and effect.

The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will 
rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas 
releases needed to supply our energy future demands.   Lets reserve our 
concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current 
conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the past 
and will find a solution to any problems that arise.   The scientific 
understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to us. 

Dave 





-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 

To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?


Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few 
decades to cool off the coasts. 


   

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Bob Higgins]

Eric,

I am an EE.  I would try it myself, but I don't have a spot welder.  DI
water is very high resistance - essentially an insulator. But it won't stay
non-conductive for long if you are welding in it. One of the electrodes is
likely ground. To boot, you are normally connecting the electrodes to
conductive sheet metal and no one is getting electrocuted. I would be more
concerned about the energetics. I would just start with snapping the
electrodes in a plastic bucket with DI water - or maybe distilled water to
start.  I would put the electrode bars through holes in a sheet of plastic
so water cannot splash up into the welder. Doing this underwater I estimate
to be a step forward over what Mills did; and simpler. When testing with a
fuel pellet, I might encapsulate the prepared pellet in wax to isolate it -
then crush through the wax with the electrodes.

Of course, if someone is uncomfortable with doing this, they shouldn't try
it!  Protect yourself!

Bob
On Aug 26, 2014 8:49 PM, "Eric Walker"  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be
>> able to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes.
>>
>
> Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the hazards
> of submerging the electrodes of a spot welder and then turning it on?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[David Roberson]

I would make my best effort at measuring the time domain voltage and current 
waveforms across the load pellet.  The current can be measured much as Bob was 
suggesting, for instance by attaching probes along one of the large copper 
electrodes.  The voltage should be captured as close as possible to the pellet 
unless the drop along the electrodes is proven to be low enough to achieve 
adequate accuracy.

Keeping the magnetically induced probe error voltages low is going to be the 
major challenge.   Once the instantaneous voltage and current waveforms are 
captured, the input energy can be determined by an integration of the product 
of these functions.  I would not be overly surprised to find the voltage and 
current waveforms to be complex and cyclic.  The integrated product of these 
waveforms might be difficult to determine as well.

I would not have confidence in a measurement of the input energy at any 
location except within close proximity to the load.  

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jojo Iznart 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt



If you measure before the input side, you have to minus the base load of the 
transformer (its losses).  Then you can run the spark and see if your 
instruments are sensitive enough to register a fast power spike.  Then you have 
to integrate the chart to compute energy.  I believe this is what BLP did, 
hence this technique is open to criticism as erroneous.  The only way to 
absolutely prove overunity is to close the loop.
 
Any ideas on how to accurately measure Input Power from the group?
 
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Jack Cole 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:27   AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


  
I don't know how to measure the input power.  We're talking   2-5V and 
3000-4000 amps.  I'd be scared to hook my oscilloscope up to it.You could 
maybe do it on the supply side from the 110AC with a watt   meter, but that 
would be the power going in to the transformer.
  


  
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:
  


Dave, 

 

A very thin film of water on a piece of wire should not change the 
impedance that much.  Certainly not explain the clearly more intense light 
output.  There appears to be something going on here.

 

Jack, it might help if you measured the temperature and humidity as you are 
performing the tests. 

 

The output power can be measured with a small solar panel.

 

That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on how to measure input power?  
Other than a watthour meter, I'm out.  Although I doubt a common watthour 
meter would be sensitive enough.  Another option is an oscilloscope on the 
electrodes.

 

 

 

 

 

Jojo



 

 

  
- Original Message - 
  
From: David Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com   
  
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014   12:01 AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


Interesting   results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the 
conductivity of   the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out 
at the   pellet?  This excellent short might prevent the voltage from 
rising   enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a 
low   value.

A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper   and that 
will result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being   delivered.  
 What I am describing is related to the concept of   matching the source 
impedance to get the maximum power from the   source.  In that case an open 
or short will have zero power   delivered.  You may have a near zero 
condition with copper only and a   much better power match with the water 
film.

Dave
  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39   am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

  
  
It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in   water and put 
between the electrodes.  The amount of water is   minuscule (the amount 
that managed to adhere to the metal).  You   don't get that without the 
water.
  


  
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:
  


was that the spark with or without fuel (water pellets)?

 

 

Jojo



 

 

  
- Original Message - 
  
From: Jack Cole 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014   9:15 AM
  
Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


  
Hi Folks,
  
I was excited to receive m

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[Jojo Iznart]

I think we should step back and ask ourselves (or Jack) what the goal of this 
replication attempt really is.  

Is it to fully test the energy balance.  In which case, we need to measure 
energy output via a calorimetry setup, which greatly complicates the setup and 
introduces myriad of error possibilities.

Or is the goal simply to verify certain aspects of Mill's claims.  If for 
instance we simply want to verify Mill's input energy claim of 5J or his output 
energy claims, then a simpler setup which is like the suncell would suffice.  
Solar panels for output, an oscilloscope rigged like Bob suggested for input 
power measurements.  If COP is as large as 100, extreme precision is not needed 
to establish OU operation - ala Mill's claim.

I say lets opt for the second goal.  


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Eric,  

  I am an EE.  I would try it myself, but I don't have a spot welder.  DI water 
is very high resistance - essentially an insulator. But it won't stay 
non-conductive for long if you are welding in it. One of the electrodes is 
likely ground. To boot, you are normally connecting the electrodes to 
conductive sheet metal and no one is getting electrocuted. I would be more 
concerned about the energetics. I would just start with snapping the electrodes 
in a plastic bucket with DI water - or maybe distilled water to start.  I would 
put the electrode bars through holes in a sheet of plastic so water cannot 
splash up into the welder. Doing this underwater I estimate to be a step 
forward over what Mills did; and simpler. When testing with a fuel pellet, I 
might encapsulate the prepared pellet in wax to isolate it - then crush through 
the wax with the electrodes. 

  Of course, if someone is uncomfortable with doing this, they shouldn't try 
it!  Protect yourself!

  Bob

  On Aug 26, 2014 8:49 PM, "Eric Walker"  wrote:

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins  
wrote:


  If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be 
able to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes.


Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the hazards 
of submerging the electrodes of a spot welder and then turning it on?


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

[jwinter]

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for your erudite and interesting answers.  However I don't think 
you really answered the question I was interested in because you are so 
saturated with the current paradigm.  I sense from your answer that you 
are happy with the idea that given an *actually* simple (in comparison 
to later more complex) self-replicating life form, random mutations and 
selection is sufficient to generate all life as we know it.  I don't 
wish to argue against that view, even though for myself I find it 
impossible to believe.


If you could momentarily put aside the current paradigm and consider the 
possibility that we have been visited by aliens who although evolving 
completely independently on another planet have, incredibly as it may 
seem, ended up with compatible DNA to our own - so that a case of hybrid 
sexual intercourse such as Antonio Vilas Boas 
 case could 
occur.  The implications to evolution of this type of case being true 
are I think quite revolutionary. It means for instance that the final 
human DNA outcome from the whole evolution process must be completely 
determined from the very beginning!!!


I really don't want to hear arguments about how this is impossible and 
the Vilas Boas case must be fake - I appreciate them fully. What I would 
like is if you could withhold disbelief sufficiently to consider whether 
there you can see an argument from within your field of evolutionary 
genetics?  For instance, is it possible that there is sufficient 
information programmed into the simplest life forms (or at least the 
ones that unfolded into the forms of life that finally resulted in us) 
to at least allow, if not ensure, that the final result would be human?


Also I wonder what is the current guess at the first (and ongoingly 
successful) animal to emerge from the sea?  I saw some large carnivore 
types that were proposed - but how would they live on land without other 
animals to eat?  And if they had to go back into the sea to eat (which 
is their main daily and lifelong task) why not simply stay there.  I 
think it would need to be an animal that could live well on land plants 
and/or insects (which I believe long preceded the vertebrates).


John

On 27/08/2014 6:49 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

To my mind there are two separate evolution question problems that need
to be addressed.  The first, which you pick up on, is the evolution of
the complex folding proteins, and the second is the evolution of the
information that is used to define the complex structure of multi celled
organisms (such as us).  There are countless examples which show how
duplication of whole or parts of genes genes, mutation of parts of genes
can create complex proteins from simple proteins.  Indeed the
relationship between equivalent proteins in different organsisms can
often be used to produce a 'family tree' or phylogentic tree which
closely mirrors the accepted evolutionary relationship between the
species, and shows how a simple ancestral protein gave rise to lots of
complex variants in different plants/animals.

The evolution of structure/form and instincts which is what Darwin talks
about, because he knows nothing of proteins, is very different because
we still understand very little about how this is encoded into the DNA,
although there is absolute evidence that it is.   This is increasingly
looking to be encoded in the 'junk' DNA in a much more distributed and
robust way (like a hologram).  These can change and mutate and give rise
to variations in the organism without being lethal.  A lot of the
statistics that creationists use to show that evolution is improbable is
based on the sequences in genes that encode for proteins, where small
changes are frequently lethal.  The statistics for the rest of the DNA
is completely different, and I beleive completely compatible with the
evolutionary model.

So, I see no need for additional injection or meddling in order that DNA
could go from producing simple lifeforms to complex lifeforms, but I
dont think this can be proved mathematically yet because we dont
understand the 'junk DNA' coding rules yet.   However, my hunch is that
we are in for a big surprise when we finally work out what the coding
rules are, but that is a different topic entirely.

And the first animal to emerge from the sea was not a frog, but probably
shared some aspects of the way that it breathed with frogs.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[David Roberson]

It is difficult to prove how much effect the water has on the spark.  I would 
concentrate on the measurement of input- output energy first to ensure that it 
is worth further research.  It seems likely to me that the water film will 
become a plasma at the enormous currents being drawn by the network and that 
should radiate a lot of visible energy.  The air in the vicinity might also get 
into the act under these harsh conditions.

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jojo Iznart 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt



Well, we are testing the theory that Randy is proposing. In that theory, the 
water should split to H atoms which would then undergo a hydrino transition in 
the presence of a catalyst (the wire in Jack' case; powder in Mill's case).  
This is what we are ruling out.
 
Can you explain the origin of the more intense spark in the presence of a thin 
film of water.  You're argument of impedance change is valid; though I tend to 
think it is irrelevant given the small change a thin film of water would 
contribute.
 
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:59   AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial   Replication Attempt
  


It is the initial contact point that I am thinking about Jojo.  The water in 
that   immediate path should rapidly turn into gas or plasma due to the energy  
 deposited into it.  If the water does not matter then why would we expect   it 
to contribute to the spark?  I suppose the real question is how thick   is the 
film of water and how does it affect the voltage/current waveforms   across the 
large contactors?

I believe that it will take a very good   voltage and current measurement 
system to get to the bottom of this   issue.

Dave
  


  


  


  
-Original   Message-
From: Jojo Iznart 
To:   vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:18   pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

  
  
  
Dave, 
  
 
  
A very thin film of water on a piece of wire   should not change the impedance 
that much.  Certainly not explain   the clearly more intense light output.  
There appears to be something going on here.
  
 
  
Jack, it might help if you measured the   temperature and humidity as you are 
performing the tests. 
  
 
  
The output power can be measured with a small   solar panel.
  
 
  
That leaves the input power.  Any ideas on   how to measure input power?  Other 
than a watthour meter, I'm out.Although I doubt a common watthour meter 
would be sensitive enough.Another option is an oscilloscope on the 
electrodes.
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
Jojo
  
 
  
 
  

- Original Message - 

From: David Roberson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:01 AM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt



Interesting results Jack.  Could it be that with copper only the 
conductivity of the path is so low that the voltage is nearly shorted out 
at the pellet?  This excellent short might prevent the voltage from rising  
   enough thereby keeping the power and energy into the pellet at a low 
value.

A water film by contrast has much more impedance than copper and that will 
result in a voltage increase and hence more energy being delivered.   What 
I am describing is related to the concept of matching the source impedance 
to get the maximum power from the source.  In that case an open or short 
will have zero power delivered.  You may have a near zero condition with 
copper only and a much better power match with the water film.

Dave










-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:39 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt



It was with a tiny piece of copper wire that I dipped in water and put 
between the electrodes.  The amount of water is minuscule (the amount that 
managed to adhere to the metal).  You don't get that without the water.




On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

  
  
was that the spark with or without fuel (water   pellets)?
  
 
  
 
  
Jojo
  
  
  
 
  
 
  

- Original Message - 

From: Jack Cole 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:15 AM

Subject: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt




Hi Folks,

I was excited to receive my spot welder today.  After ensuring it was 
in working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get 
anything like what BLP showed.  Lo and behold I got something on the 
first try.  

I remembered Mills talking about all the different po

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

[jwinter]

On 27/08/2014 9:09 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:

In my previous existence here, Nigel and I engaged is quite a long
discussion about evolution.  We did it offline.  At that time, I asked Nigel
to provide evidence of what he considers to be "clear" proof of evolution.
I don't believe he has satisfied that criteria.

Nothing would satisfy that criteria for people like Jojo.

A termite colony takes up residence in a 1000 year old dead tree trunk.  
A biologist walks by and catches a few termites for analysis.  A 
scientific paper is published with the interest grabbing title "living 
termites carbon dated as 1000 years old!" Because of a few interesting 
examples like this Jojo writes off the entire discipline of radionuclide 
dating with all of its endless self-consistent and cross-discipline 
consistent results.


If you can't date at what time in the past various life forms lived and 
thus say which ones came before others, then what is left to say!?  You 
may as well save your typing!



So, now, I would like to ask Nigel to provide the group with his best proof
(genetic or otherwise) of evolution happenning.  Not speculation of "maybe
this", "maybe that", "this should happen", "that should happen" ...etc.
Just clear simple proof of evolution that is observable.

You see, sometimes many highly qualified people would infer from the data
their interpretation of what the data means.  This is what Nigel is doing.
He is inferring that the genetic data "appears" to match Darwinian Evolution
Theory.  But Folks, we need to be circumspect enough to separate the fact
from its interpretation.  The fact is the fact, but interpretation of what
that fact infers is just an opinion.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

[David Roberson]

Water that does not contain contaminants is a good insulator.  Regular tap 
water around here is highly resistive and would not short out the welder if the 
electrodes were emerged within it.  The low voltage generated by the welder 
would not be much of a hazard to people.  Of course I would refrain from 
holding on to the electrodes with or without water just in principle.
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 10:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt



On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:



If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be able to 
avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes.




Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the hazards of 
submerging the electrodes of a spot welder and then turning it on?


Eric