Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion‏" - Revisited

[Charles Hope]

You've already told her to shut up several times, so that's repetitive and 
boring as well. 




On Jan 4, 2012, at 13:48, "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint"  
wrote:

> Mary Yugo stated/asked,
> “Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and 
> Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity 
> that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?”
>  
> That’s easy… and I’ve explained it to you before.
> I have stated my reservations (more than once) about the whole affair 6 
> months ago;  and because I try to abide by the guidelines of this forum, I 
> don’t want to repeat what I have already stated.  What part of that don’t you 
> understand?
> -Mark
>  
> From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:36 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:"A competent observer's assessment of 
> Defkalion‏" - Revisited
>  
>  
> 
> 2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
> Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time,
> “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.”
>  
> Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it.  You 
> just never learn…
> Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor 
> implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts?  If AI, 
> then the programmer forgot to #include 
> -Mark
> 
> Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and 
> Defkalion.  You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity 
> that spawned it.  Why do you think that is?
>  

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion described how they got Rossi's formula

[Charles Hope]

What about Jed Rothwell's secret source who just came back with glowing reviews?



On Jan 3, 2012, at 4:35, Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 2 January 2012 04:35, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
>  wrote:
> Not having direct access I think it's difficult for any of us to determine 
> whether DGT or Rossi is ahead in the game. DGT strikes me as better 
> organized, company wise. The organization is probably being run like a 
> disciplined corporation.
> 
> I cannot understand where did you get such an impression. Defkalion is still 
> nothing but an unpopular discussion forum in the Internet. Nothing else. 
> There is only one spokes person, Xanthoulis, who is making bold claims, 
> without any real proofs.
> 
> Everyone who has personal knowledge on Defkalion, does not trust them, and 
> that is just two individuals in the whole world, i.e. Rossi and Stremmenos. 
> There is only one known person who has visited Defkalion »laboratory» and 
> he/she came back with an impression that 'I would not want to work with these 
> guys'. (or something similar)
> 
> There is nothing real ever presented on the company. And every scarce 
> empirical evidence (a statements from three individuals) what we have, points 
> into direction that Defkalion is a phony company. For me this kind of 
> determination, what is the real nature of Defkalion, is very simple to do, 
> because I trust Rossi.
> 
>–Jouni
> 

Re: [Vo]:Out for a while

[Charles Hope]

Enjoy your trip. Alaska must be quite an experience this time of year. I intend 
to have pondered your papers when you have returned. 

 

On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:37, Horace Heffner  wrote:

> I have to take care of a rental in Anchorage that was just vacated.  Makes me 
> a little nervous considering Gene Mallove's  history with that kind of thing.
> 
> I will not be able to follow things here for a while.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
> 
> 
> 
> 

[Vo]:How I propose to encode math in vortex discussions

[Charles HOPE]

(You'll have to visit the URL at the end to follow the post's links)


For a surprisingly long time, communicating rich mathematical formulas has
been difficult on the Web, in e-mail, or in plain text discussion groups.
There are two tools that take the pain out of this process.
Writing

Codecogs offers a very nice equation
editor,
with a complete set of WYSIWYG buttons that operate a workspace which
builds an equation in LaTeX, while rendering a graphic image in real-time.
The resulting image can be exported in various graphic formats, or the
LaTeX can be copied to your clipboard.
Reading Avital Oliver wrote a lightweight browser plug-in for Firefox which
renders LaTeX equations, called TEX THE WORLD . It
has since been ported
to
Google Chrome. It scans every web page for equations between [; and ;] and
renders them automatically.

Together these make it possible to easily produce LaTeX formulas, already
legible to scientific professionals and able to survive the plainest of
ASCII environments, and to view them as rich formulas if rendered through a
modern web browser.



<
http://luminoustop.typepad.com/charles_hope_and_the_lumi/2012/01/how-to-read-and-write-mathematics-on-the-internet-including-web-based-e-mail-.html
>



-- 
Never did I see a second sun
Never did my skin touch a land of glass
Never did my rifle point but true
But in a land empty of enemies
Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want
A uranium angel
Crying “behold,”
This land that knew fire is yours
Taken from Corruption
To begin anew

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)

[Charles Hope]

What is Takahashi analogue to the deflated electron?



On Dec 30, 2011, at 13:21, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in Phase 
> III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't use 
> many equations, mostly your intuition. So, I get lost reading your papers. 
> 
> Right, to be clear. a-e. Just show me where I can find in your papers. I will 
> surely read it, because I just could start to figure out anything from you 
> only when I had a similar idea.
> 
> 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 
> What part do you not understand:
> 
>a.  the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron
>b.  the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron
>c.  the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the fusion energy
>d.  why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post fusion 
> nuclear electron
>e.  the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to radiate
> 
> Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation fusion, not 
> any other. I think these things have been described in my articles, but often 
> when I look back I find material that was posted but not included in any 
> article, but which I had assumed was included in an article.   Sometimes it 
> takes me months to find things, and in the interim I think maybe they were 
> figments of my imagination.
> 
> 
> On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> 
>> I didn't understand this part "from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in 
>> small increments by a trapped electron."  
>> 
>> 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 
>> 
>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>> 
>>> Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go 
>>> to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy 
>>> that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people 
>>> reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going 
>>> into the right direction.
>>> 
>>> But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays.
>> 
>> 
>> You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced.  You 
>> don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released 
>> from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped 
>> electron. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
> 

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)

[Charles HOPE]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

>
>
>
> The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy.
>   It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the
> hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice.
>



How can the ground state be degenerate?  Do you have any arguments using
bra-ket notation?




>
> Preferable to what for describing what?
>


Isn't the Takahashi approach preferable to the deflation fusion approach
because it maintains the standard model? The only reference to deflated
hydrogen comes from vortex.



> Huge numbers of atoms are involved in heavy element transmutation.  Can
> you imagine Bockris' surprise when he found them? there was no prior
> indication that such energetic events were taking place.
>
>

I see.  There really are several phenomena all confusingly anomalous!



>
> I would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over email, but I
> have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend.
>
>
>
> I do not think the problem is a lack of math. The problem is that I have
> not explained the processes with enough simplicity that a child can follow
> them.  I sincerely doubt that anyone on this list, at any rate, wants or
> needs more math for convincing.  Math only obscures the underlying
> concepts.
>


I've never heard a scientist express this sentiment before.  For me, I find
rather the opposite.  My eyes glaze over when confronted by paragraph after
paragraph of prose, without equations to really explain what's going on. I
don't think children should understand this material!




-- 
Never did I see a second sun
Never did my skin touch a land of glass
Never did my rifle point but true
But in a land empty of enemies
Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want
A uranium angel
Crying “behold,”
This land that knew fire is yours
Taken from Corruption
To begin anew

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)

[Charles Hope]

On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner  wrote:

> 
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
>> 
>> Horace,
>> 
>> Thanks for the comment.
>> 
>> What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
>> I will check out your theory.
>> Do you believe any "new physics" is required
>> - or does standard QM suffice?
>> I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.
>> 
>> LP
>> 
>> 
>> I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the deflated 
>> state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects combined 
>> with magnetic effects.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state,
> 
> I think  ultimately it can.  I know of no analytic method available, other 
> than possibly FEA.   Naudt's relativistic orbital description has gained 
> little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's.   The addition of spin 
> coupling magnetic considerations  puts the complexity over the top, as far as 
> I know.  I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt, experimental 
> implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment dictates.  
> Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education, this is the 
> only choice I have. 
> 
> 
>> but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is 
>> it?
> 
> No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept.  However, the 
> deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics.


How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state, forbidden by 
QM. 



>  
> 
>> 
>> Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi?
> 
> I see no use in criticizing Takahashi.   I gather it is culturally difficult 
> for him, especially coming from an amateur like me.  No need to be even more 
> socially insensitive than I already am.  


Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory. Doesn't it 
have less New Physics, and so should be preferable?




> 
> In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -->  intermediate 
> product --> 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D --> X + 4He "nuclear 
> catalysis" idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious 
> aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the 
> abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the massive 
> heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is necessary.


I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy difference 
(23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat. That was my 
interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity to the helium. 


>  Any such theory that is adequate to do this can not assume neutrons precede 
> the cold fusion reactions, because neither neutron activation nor radioactive 
> byproducts are observed except in very small amounts that do not correspond 
> to the overall transmutation rate.  I think heavy element transmutation is 
> where the essence of the field lies.  It is unfortunate so much thinking is 
> focused on D+D.  Perhaps it is assumed that since D+D is difficult to 
> explain, that X+H or X+D  is far more difficult or impossible to explain, or 
> even does not exist.  This I think is far from the truth. The most critical 
> impediments are tunneling  distance and tunneling energy.  These are 
> impediments overcome by the shorter distance to lattice atoms from lattice 
> sites, and the net energy gain to be had from the tunneling of deflated state 
> hydrogen.  Heavy element transmutation is far more credible and probable to 
> me than direct hydrogen + hydrogen fusion. Perhaps the latter does not even 
> happen to any significant degree.  The lack of conservation of energy, both 
> on the positive and negative sides, is explained by the trapped electron 
> concept, which is also not conventional thinking, but rather part of the 
> deflation fusion concept.  The trapped electron can kinetically absorb the 
> initial EM pulse of the strong nuclear reaction, radiate in small increments, 
> and be involved in follow-on weak reactions with greatly elevated 
> probabilities due to extended lingering time.  In some cases it may help 
> induce fission.   Understanding the trapping mechanism in the first place, 
> once tunneling is accepted, is high school physics.  Understanding how the 
> electron can escape without a weak reaction, however, takes s

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)

[Charles HOPE]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

>
> On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
>
>  Horace,
>>
>> Thanks for the comment.
>>
>> What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
>> I will check out your theory.
>> Do you believe any "new physics" is required
>> - or does standard QM suffice?
>> I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.
>>
>> LP
>>
>
>
> I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the
> deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic effects
> combined with magnetic effects.
>


I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state, but I don't
believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics, is it?

Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi?

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

I'm going through Takahashi this week. How could a BEC exist at room 
temperature?




On Dec 27, 2011, at 22:41, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> Bose-Einstein Condensate

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles HOPE]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 01:35 AM 12/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote:
>
>
>  On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was
>> that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible
>> that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some
>> pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent
>> work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium
>> that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using,
>> apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet
>> unverified.
>>
>> Oh? Citation, please?
>>
>
> Akito Takahashi, multiple publications, going back into the early 1990s.
> For example, see "Study on 4D/Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate Condensation
> Motion by Non-Linear Langevin Equation," Akito Takahashi and Norio
> Yabuuchi, in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, ed Marwan and Krivit,
> American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press, 2008.
>
> See also the Storms review, which mentions this work, "Status of cold
> fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, October 2010. For abstract, see
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/**pubmed/20838756<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838756>,
> for a preprint, see http://www.lenr-canr.org/**
> acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf<http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf>
>
>

Thank you, I will have a look at these papers.



> As to the opinion of quantum physicists on the possibility of there being
> unknown effects in the solid state, there was a recent revision of a
> textbook on solid state nuclear models, and it has a section on LENR, and
> it turns out that the author had written something pointing to the lack of
> "impossibility" back around 1990.



I don't quite follow. Do you mean that he first wrote that it was not
impossible, and then was forced to delete the statement?

Re: [Vo]:care less

[Charles HOPE]

http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html




On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Tue, 27 Dec
> 2011
> 10:56:38 -0600:
> Hi,
>
> Quote:
> "I think they will care less about any theoretical arguments that"
>
> This is one of my pet peeves with Americans. ;)
>
> The expression is "couldn't care less" not "could care less".
>
> "couldn't care less" is short for "It isn't possible for me to care less
> about
> this subject because I don't care about it at all" (and I'm sure you don't
> ;)
>
> If you "could care less", then it means you must care about it to some
> extent as
> it is possible for you to care less than the amount that you now do.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>


-- 
Never did I see a second sun
Never did my skin touch a land of glass
Never did my rifle point but true
But in a land empty of enemies
Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want
A uranium angel
Crying “behold,”
This land that knew fire is yours
Taken from Corruption
To begin anew

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles HOPE]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

>
>
> The conventional D+D fusion reaction, using mass differences, is:
>
>  D + D --> 4He + 23.847 MeV
>
>

OK, I get it. Am I correct that the conventional theory says this reaction
doesn't really occur (it's either 3He + n, or 3H + H), or if it did
somehow, the energy would be emitted as gamma ray, and not as heat?

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

If the helium levels are "what they should be" compared to the heat, that 
assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory is that? 



On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:24, Horace Heffner  wrote:

> It is not theory, it is experimental result.  Go to:
> 
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/
> 
> and enter "Miles helium" and "McKubre helium".
> 
> 
> On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote:
> 
>> How's that? According to what theory?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> 
>>> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because 
>>>> there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to 
>>>> observed heat.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they 
>>> should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre.
>>> 
>>> - Jed
>>> 
>> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

How's that? According to what theory?



On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> 
>> If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because 
>> there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to 
>> observed heat.
>> 
> 
> You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they 
> should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was that 
> there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible that 
> the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some pathway 
> around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent work has 
> actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium that 
> *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using, 
> apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet unverified.

Oh? Citation, please?

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

On Dec 26, 2011, at 16:57, Mary Yugo  wrote:


> With Rossi and Defkalion truly acting and writing like clowns, it's not hard 
> to see why there is no major press coverage or much of anything else going 
> on, a full year after the original announcement and hoopla.   And Aussie 
> Guy's extravagant writing and claims, followed by what amounts to backing 
> down on them, doesn't help either.   This stuff gets less credible and more 
> fanciful every day.


What, you don't believe in these cells that reliably produce heat, built by a 
secret research team unknown to this list and without any relation to anything 
in Jed's encyclopedic library, tested by a company flush in cash but that must 
remain anonymous? Geez, what will it take to convince you of anything?

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

A company that's spent $100k+ on R&D, but can't let anyone know they're even in 
the industry? I know marketing operations must sometimes be embargoed but 
that's a bit tough to swallow. 

As far as I'm concerned it's more likely that this email account is a shill 
paid by Rossi to spin tales and lend him credence, or just somebody's idea of a 
laugh.   

 

On Dec 25, 2011, at 20:06, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> All will be revealed when we have the positive uni report on our replicant 
> FPE devices. Until then everyone involved wants to keep a low profile, which 
> I trust you understand.
> 
> AG
> 
> 
> On 12/26/2011 11:24 AM, Charles Hope wrote:
>> Have you yet revealed your name, or the name of your company?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 25, 2011, at 19:48, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:
>> 
>>> I support McKubre's "Conservation of Miracles" or as I put it, "Different 
>>> Dog, Same Leg Action" ;)
>>> 
>>> AG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/26/2011 11:04 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell 
>>>>> as
>>>>> a FPE device.
>>>> But it is not.  The reaction is likely unrelated to PdD.
>>>> 
>>>> T
>> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

Have you yet revealed your name, or the name of your company? 



On Dec 25, 2011, at 19:48, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> I support McKubre's "Conservation of Miracles" or as I put it, "Different 
> Dog, Same Leg Action" ;)
> 
> AG
> 
> 
> On 12/26/2011 11:04 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
>>   wrote:
>>> I can't discuss the cell technology yet. I can say I consider a Ni-H cell as
>>> a FPE device.
>> But it is not.  The reaction is likely unrelated to PdD.
>> 
>> T
> 

Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith

[Charles Hope]

Yes, links. Mailers are supposed to preserve links inside the brackets. It's a 
little known fact, but hopefully all the writers of mail software remember it. 



On Dec 24, 2011, at 19:38, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:25 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> I have no trouble with any other posts, only those 2.  I have received many 
> links before with no issues. 
>  
> Dave
> 
> 
> If you send me the bad links, either privately or on the list, I'll rewrite 
> them as "tinuyurls".
> 
> @Charles: You wrap what in <>?  Links or just email addresses.  Never heard 
> of doing that with links.

Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith

[Charles Hope]

If you wrap the link in , it should better survive travel. 

On Dec 24, 2011, at 12:21, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
> 
>   Sometimes email clients are not kindly to links and interpret/parse them 
> badly!
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:A new and baffling "Rossi said"

[Charles Hope]

The very first act I'd do is run my own home and office from the technology. In 
winter the windows would be wide open to enjoy the fresh air as we roasted in 
the balmy heat pouring from my heaters that were attached to nothing. That's 
just me. 




On Dec 24, 2011, at 12:57, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> I believe "moke up" is supposed to be mock-up. I just told Andrea that.
> 
> Yes, as I noted, what "moke up" means is no mystery.  So what does the 
> remainder of the gobbledygook mean?  Is Rossi writing about what he expects 
> Defkalion to do?  What they did?  What?  
> 
> Another hallmark of a scam is that the perpetrators act as if the discovery 
> was not as important as it really would be if it were real.  For example, 
> Steorn supposedly discovered a mysterious magnetic interaction that resulted 
> in motors that ran themselves, overcoming friction, and providing free energy 
> beyond that.   But how would a normal person or company act if in possession 
> of such a wonder?  Wouldn't they be extremely active in developing and 
> showing and proving the idea?  Would they not rapidly enlist patent lawyers 
> by the dozens?  Would they not have the concept proven and developed in the 
> largest, best and most effective places?   But none of that ever happened 
> with Steorn.   All they ever did was give demos that were underwhelming and 
> obscure enough so that enthusiasts could interpret them as success.  But they 
> never were.  And there was never any progress and still isn't.  And all their 
> customers, if there were any, were anonymous.  They gave away only one device 
> (I'm not even clear that they really ever did that-- it's sort of a vague 
> recollection at this point) and the recipient said he couldn't make it work. 
> 
> Their most prominent point of contact was their forum and what did they do 
> there?  They responded tangentially, incompetently, and weirdly.  At the same 
> time, they attacked their most reasonable critics with sarcasm and threatened 
> to (or actually did) ban them.   They threatened and never brought law suits 
> for libel.   This is precisely Defkalion's behavior currently.  In the area 
> of demonstrations, lectures, and the like, everything with Steorn progressed 
> at a snail pace and none of the activity was appropriate to the uniqueness 
> and grandeur of the discovery, had it been real.  Proponents defended Steorn, 
> postulating that they were concerned about someone stealing the technology.  
> Sound familiar?
> 
> This is exactly the pattern Rossi is following.  If Rossi really had a cold 
> fusion reactor on his table top and was using it to provide continuous 
> heating for even one room of his "factory", why would he not show it?  Why 
> instead would he have done four hour inadequate demos when he now has a 
> SECOND factory heater that runs CONTINUOUSLY!?   And if the excuse is that he 
> is keeping a low profile, why does he mention these things AT ALL?   
> 
> None of this makes sense.  Not Rossi and not Defkalion.  And when things 
> don't add up, you'd better think maybe you're being flummoxed.

Re: [Vo]:Mathematical modeling versus a blacksmith

[Charles Hope]

Another secret contact! Why can't your friend create a throwaway hotmail 
account like anyone else?



On Dec 23, 2011, at 12:27, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 7:37 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
> Hello Mary,
>  
> I wonder if you could ask your source to explain the bump in the curve
> 
> Done, thanks. 

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Charles Hope]

Tiresome accusations like this ought to be banned from this list. Have you ever 
once seen a paycheck cut for the job of Internet trolling? Really? Really? 
Because it sounds like an awesome part time job, frankly. 




On Dec 19, 2011, at 8:10, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> Cude what does this have to do with F&P having been replicated in many labs 
> all over the world? You need to accept that the FPE is real and move on to 
> working out why it happens. Oh BTW you just might apologize to F&P for the 
> treatment they received by you and your mates.
> 
> Would you please disclose if your income / pay check depends on you not 
> believing the FPE is real and / or working to trash anyone who does? I ask 
> because all you apparently contribute to this list is trashing the FPE.
> 
> 
> On 12/19/2011 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell > > wrote:
>> 
>>He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a
>>lighthearted account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It
>>starts off with Arrhenius in 1883. He was one of the most
>>important electrochemists in history, like Faraday. He made a
>>revolutionary discovery. As any student of history would predict,
>>this led the academic authorities to kick him out of the
>>university. He was vilified and ridiculed for years and years.
>>Finally, long after, he won a Nobel prize.
>> 
>> 
>> You mean like Einstein got kicked out of university? No, because his 
>> revolutionary ideas got him kicked *into* university.
>> 
>> 
>> You mean like Planck's ideas got him kicked out of university? No, because 
>> they named one after him.
>> 
>> 
>> etc.
>> 
>> 
>> You can't just make shit up to please your audience.
>> 
>> 
>> I'd like to know of a professor who got kicked out of university for a 
>> revolutionary idea. At least one that turned out to be right, and didn't 
>> have religious objectors.
>> 
>> 
>> Because, contrary to your claim, Arrhenius does not provide an example. I 
>> admit, my source does not go beyond wikipedia, but according to it, his 
>> controversial ideas were presented in his doctoral thesis, so he didn't have 
>> a position to be kicked out of. And while there were local skeptics, his 
>> degree was granted, if only as 3rd class. Nevertheless, when the 
>> dissertation was sent to other European scholars, they came to Sweden trying 
>> to recruit him. Doesn't really sound much like cold fusion, does it?
>> 
>> 
>> The Swedish Academy then awarded him a grant to study with the likes of 
>> Boltzmann and van 't Hoff. That doesn't sound like years and years of 
>> vilification does it? A few years after his graduation, he was *given* an 
>> appointment at the Stockholm university, and was a full professor/chair 
>> (rector) about a decade after his PhD. That doesn't sound much like 
>> ridicule, does it?
>> 
>> 
>> It did take almost 20 years to recognize his work with a Nobel prize, but 
>> maybe the fact that the prize was not initiated until about 17 years after 
>> had something to do with that. He got the 3rd one in chemistry. He was on 
>> the Nobel committee from the beginning until his death, and it seems he was 
>> not a particularly nice guy himself, arranging awards for his friends, and 
>> attempting to deny them to his enemies. He also got involved in racial 
>> biology (eugenics) later in his life.
>> 
>>That happens so often I am astounded anyone believes the myth that
>>scientists welcome new ideas.
>> 
>> 
>> Well, you would not be astounded if you actually paid attention to history, 
>> instead of twisting it to rationalize your fervent belief in cold fusion. 
>> Right about the same time as the CF announcement, high temperature 
>> superconductivity was discovered, and the Nobel prize was awarded -- now get 
>> this -- one year later. The discovery had no theory to support it, was 
>> unexpected, and yet the discoverers were not dismissed from their positions. 
>> Amazing, isn't it. Of course, most Nobel prizes (including Einstein's) take 
>> much longer, because it usually takes time for the importance to become 
>> manifest, but new discoveries are always celebrated in science, by 
>> scientists.
>> 
>> 
>> As I've said before, the most revolutionary ideas in science in centuries, 
>> relativity and QM, were accepted almost as quickly as they could be 
>> developed. Because they fit the evidence so perfectly.
>> 
>> 
>> Just about every evaluation of merit in science, from granting of degrees, 
>> to awarding academic or industrial positions, to granting awards, to giving 
>> funding, to accepting manuscripts for publication, to any degree of fame and 
>> glory, has as its first criterion:
>> 
>> 
>> *** novelty ***.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What scientists fear is not new ideas (they crave them), but wrong ideas. 
>> Scientists are skeptical; they have to be. Skepticism is a critical filter 
>> in guiding research. W

Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?

[Charles Hope]

What happened to these men and their device? How can a functional generator 
fail to be mass produced all these years later?



On Dec 16, 2011, at 13:15, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> Robert
>  
> Ø  Before the courts determine a victor, who will the "people" identify as 
> the inventor? I believe that it may just come down to "branding"… So, if 
> Nickel Hydrogen really takes off, who gets the credit?
>  
> The first Ni-H device to achieve significant excess energy (> 10 watts 
> continuous) and to run for a year in OU mode, and which was completely 
> verified by NASA, and Haldeman at MIT - was the Thermacore reactor, based on 
> Mills’ theory and invented by Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst.
>  
> Those three: Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst  should get full credit IMO – not 
> Piantelli, not Focardi, not Rossi, not even Mills who was technically the 
> first theorist of Ni-H.
>  
> These three guys have not only the legal priority date, but also the first 
> replicated, strong, continuous results with gas phase hydrogen. (there was 
> prior subwatt transitory results)
>  
> As we have mentioned here before, their reactor got more energy per unit of 
> Nickel surface area than the current Rossi reactor, and had not Thermacore 
> gone through merger and corporate reorganization about this time fame (mid 
> nineties) the inventors would surely have tried “nanometric” nickel – which 
> was Rossi’s main contribution. Note Piantelli was late on ‘nano’ too. Rossi 
> does not even get credit for the “nano” since Mills used Raney nickel – by 
> Mills neglected gas-phase.
>  
> Why did Mills steer clear of gas-phase? ANS: probably he saw early on that 
> the reactants became slowly radioactive, and RM had spurned LENR since the 
> beginning.
>  
> Thermacore Patent   5,273,635   December 28, 1993 This has the World wide 
> priority date and it has expired.
>  
> Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. 
> (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA)
>  
> Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor.
>  
> Jones
>  

[Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

[Charles Hope]

Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without 
being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on the 
fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream?

Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!

[Charles Hope]

It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which applies 
to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion, where the 
most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know their differential 
equations. 

Why would anyone mention cold fusion in 2011, and raise P & F as the example, 
while neglecting Rossi? That's really bizarre. 




On Dec 15, 2011, at 16:36, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> The whole thing is related to pseudoscience and ignorance, and it's all 
> relevant. Here it is:
> 
> 
> 1. HACKS: SHODDY PRESS COVERAGE OF SCIENCE.
> The Leveson Inquiry into the standards and ethics of the UK press, headed 
> by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, was prompted by the News of the World phone-
> hacking scandal (WN 22 Jul 2011). The seamy British tabloid was the top-
> selling English-language newspaper in the world when owner Rupert Murdoch 
> had to close it five months ago after its news-collection methods were 
> exposed. The intense public interest in the sex and drug culture of 
> celebrities is certainly troubling, but the same journalistic standards 
> applied to science news may be more dangerous.  In 1998, for example, 
> Andrew Wakefield, an obscure British gastroenterologist, set off a 
> worldwide vaccination panic when he falsely identified the common MMR 
> vaccination as a cause of autism.  Widely reported by the press, 
> Wakefield's irresponsible assertion led to a precipitous decline in 
> vaccination rate and a corresponding 14-year rise in measles cases.  An 
> editorial in the current issue of Nature (8 Dec 2011) urges scientists 
> to "fight back against agenda-driven reporting of science."  Who could 
> disagree? It is, after all, a fight against ignorance. 
> 
> 2. IGNORANCE: THERE'S PLENTY MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
> A commitment to intellectual openness provides a mechanism for self-
> correction that sets science apart from the unchanging dictates of revealed 
> religion, raising the prospect of transforming Earth into something close 
> to biblical paradise, at least for Homo sapiens.  Directions to this 
> earthly paradise, however, are written in mathematics. In particular, the 
> dialect of scientific progress is differential equations. Unfortunately, 
> few people speak mathematics or have any interest in learning it. In the 
> modern world, the engine of scientific progress is driven by a subset of 
> the human race that speaks mathematics as a second language.  This is not 
> healthy.  Many people, unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience, 
> are duped by crackpots and swindlers who attempt to mimic scientists, and   
> often manage to fool themselves.  How do they do it?
> 
> 3. LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: PSEUDOSCIENCE IS AN ENORMOUS FIELD  
> There are, I think, many more of them than there are of us. Let me mention 
> just a few of the more notorious:  Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishman, who 
> gave us Cold Fusion in 1989, are the most famous in the Free Energy 
> Category. Even so, physicists had their number in a couple of weeks. More 
> recently (2006) in the same category, the Steorn Company in Dublin gave us 
> Orbo, a classic perpetual motion machine.  So classic it gets reinvented 
> every century or so. Unfortunately Orbo is shy and refuses to perform when 
> anyone’s watching. In the Chicken-Little Category, Devra Davis says the 5 
> billion cell-phone users are toast when we reach the latency period of 
> brain cancer.  Alas, I'm reaching my limit and there are hundreds more on 
> my list. Maybe I'll write a book, or did I already do that?
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us

[Charles Hope]

Yeah, I was wondering if anyone would notice the irony. 



On Dec 14, 2011, at 21:27, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Charles Hope  
> wrote:
> Ha! No soup for you, Mary! And no, you can't have anybody else's, either.
> 
> I'm sure whoever visits will be sworn to secrecy. To protect the trade 
> secrets, of course, because they don't have a patent on what they're about to 
> mass produce!
> 
> PS: I just realized you may have been sarcastic.  If so, I apologize but 
> believers really argue like this so I have no idea whether you're serious or 
> joking!

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion tells a reader : visit us

[Charles Hope]

Ha! No soup for you, Mary! And no, you can't have anybody else's, either. 

I'm sure whoever visits will be sworn to secrecy. To protect the trade secrets, 
of course, because they don't have a patent on what they're about to mass 
produce!





On Dec 14, 2011, at 19:38, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> M.Y. : Can you mention the name of any well known scientist, engineer, 
> reporter or major company which has visited you, been favorably impressed by 
> the technology you showed them, and with whom we could get confirmation of 
> the visit?
> 
> No trade secrets or product specifications are requested -- only an opinion 
> from someone or some company independent of your people and Rossi's-- who has 
> visited your factory and/or lab and has come away with a positive impression.
> 
> DKT : You had your chance MaryYugo which you dropped for the sake of your 
> precious anonymity. Why you ask from others to confirm us now?
> Chao
> 
> PS Please do not confuse(*) Xanthou street, Glyfada, where our HQ is, with 
> Xanthi town, when we have our main factory and one of our labs. There are 
> just 780km away from each other.
> 
> (*)  http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58942.html
> 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi clarification on Bianchini

[Charles Hope]

How else do we know what the instruments said, but by recording them?



On Dec 3, 2011, at 16:06, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
> 
>  Ah.  Depends on how much you trust that when Rossi says it's off, it's 
> really off.  Remember the "stable! stable!"  video. 
> 
> I trust the instruments, not Rossi. I do not think it is likely he has 
> developed fake instruments. In any case, I know people who have done these 
> tests with their own instruments, such as the test listed by McKubre in his 
> slides.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:As a guide

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 30, 2011, at 0:22, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

>  We exchange emails several times a day. 

It doesn't concern you at all that this brilliant engineer is taking hours each 
day to answer what must be hundreds of such emails? Maybe he should hire an 
assistant to work the front of the house?

Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity

[Charles Hope]

Institutions don't like to become irrelevant. They would reverse their policy 
and eat crow before that. They would claim they believed in its possibility all 
along, but were waiting for conclusive evidence. But they wouldn't fade into 
obscurity without making an attempt. 



On Nov 28, 2011, at 22:47, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
> 
> No, what I mean is the challenge set by the charity campaign. 5 or 10 
> companies is insignificant. If this is true, I expect no less than a nobel 
> prize by 11/30/2013.
> 
> There is not a chance in hell the Nobel prize will ever go to anyone 
> associated with cold fusion. Not now, not ever. Too many people on the 
> committees have staked their reputations on it being wrong. They will all 
> have to die, and they are younger than most researchers. Even if I am wrong 
> about that, it will certainly not happen this year.
> 
> Gene Mallove said the Nobel prize will fade away and be forgotten because of 
> cold fusion. I think that is a more likely outcome. It will become irrelevant 
> the way the French academy gradually did under the onslaught of the 
> Impressionist's increasing fame. (The Impressionists were much more 
> celebrated than some history books portray. When Monet painted the Gare Saint 
> Lazare in 1877, I have heard the station master cooperated to the extent of 
> delaying trains.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LLC comments on Rossi

[Charles Hope]

I mean, you're joking that vortex isn't the Internet. 



On Nov 27, 2011, at 18:42, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Charles Hope  wrote:
>  
> Joking, yes?
> 
> No, I believe Larsen is serious. It is hard to judge.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LLC comments on Rossi

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 26, 2011, at 23:25, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> This is an outrage! I object! Larsen called me "the textually prolific 
> Internet poster-commenter Mr. Jed Rothwell." Textual, yes. Prolific, sure. 
> But I do not post on the Internet. This is a mailing list, not the Internet.


Joking, yes?

Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it

[Charles Hope]

Ok, replace "evidence" with "reasonable indication", but I believe the original 
point remains. 


On Nov 27, 2011, at 16:16, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Charles Hope  wrote:
> 
> That's fine, but then Rossi and his believers need to quit complaining or 
> expressing alarm when folks see this misdirection and reasonably interpret it 
> as evidence of a scam.
> 
> Misdirection is routinely practiced by most businesses. IBM was famous for it 
> back in the 1970s. For example, they would announce an "initiative" which 
> they never intended to follow through on, in order to stop a competitor. This 
> is mean spirited, and perhaps unfair, but it is not unethical, and it 
> certainly not a scam. Unless you hold that most corporations are engaged in 
> scams.
> 
> I do not think this is "evidence." This is your opinion, or your gut feeling 
> of distrust. I do not trust Rossi myself (not to do business with him), but I 
> would never glorify this feeling of mine by calling it "evidence" of 
> anything. It is intuition. I think "evidence" should mean "a body of facts or 
> information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." 
> That is, objectively verifiable facts in the real world, such as reports that 
> someone has been scammed (or claims to be), or that Rossi has investors who 
> have not performed independent tests of his equipment. Not your feeling that 
> he might have such investors -- or by gosh wouldn't it be just him to have 
> such investors -- but actual names of investors and a credible report about 
> them.
> 
> Feelings should not be ignored. Intuition is often valuable when making a 
> business decision. But intuition and facts are two very different things.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it

[Charles Hope]

That's fine, but then Rossi and his believers need to quit complaining or 
expressing alarm when folks see this misdirection and reasonably interpret it 
as evidence of a scam. They should admit that fraud is a rational conclusion.  



On Nov 27, 2011, at 13:05, "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
 wrote:

> From Jed:
> 
 What would be the advantage to Rossi if he provided a conclusive test?
>>> 
>>> The advantage would be that people would believe him.  If he did not want
>>> to be believed, why has he gone through all the demonstrations he has
> done
>>> thus far with invited guests including press and scientists?
>> 
>> Look, this really is not complicated. He wants to be believed a little,
>> by some groups of people, so that he can sell them reactors. He does not
>> want to be believed by everyone at this time. Many other inventors such
>> as Edison and Patterson did the same thing for the same reasons.
> 
> FWIW it appears that Saddam Hussein followed a similar strategy of
> misdirection in regards to weapons of mass destruction. This is based on
> hindsight analysis - when we tried to figure out why we got it so wrong and
> ended up invading Iraq at the needless cost of thousands of lives. However,
> a major difference between Saddam and Rossi was that in Saddam's case he was
> trying to convince neighboring adversaries of the fact that he HAD them (so
> that they would continue to fear him and not invade), while simultaneously
> trying to convince everyone else of the act that he didn't possess any.
> 
> I guess one could say that in Saddam's case he got mixed results.
> 
> I guess one could say the same about Rossi, but then, the jury is still out
> on that one. ;-)
> 
> Be that as it may, it is clear that tactics of misdirection and
> disinformation are used all the time both in covert warfare and in matters
> of covert business strategy. It would appear that any corporation that wants
> to remain in business had better be prepared to play the game.
> 
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> 

Re: [Vo]:Leonardo Corporation is a Paper Company

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 26, 2011, at 22:32, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> If you are talking about his experimental results, I will stop believing them 
> when:
> 
> 1. When Mary Yugo finds a stage magician who can tell us how to fake this, 
> even when the machine is opened up to inspection.


Opened up to exactly how much inspection?

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi's E-cat is claimed to have a COP of around 6

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 26, 2011, at 19:52, Berke Durak  wrote:
.
> 
> Actually, some women will find your statement offensive - are ladies
> precious flowers unable to speak up for themselves and that should be
> protected from vulgar language?


Absolutely. And American ladies never, ever use foul language. We maintain them 
as creatures of proper breeding and pleasant temperament. You really must try 
one some time. They're the envy of all the world. 

Re: [Vo]:Leonardo Corporation is a Paper Company

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 26, 2011, at 21:07, Craig Haynie  wrote:
> 
> 
> 5) The registered address for the Leonardo Corporation is 8 Town Farm
> Rd, New Boston, NH.
> 
> https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?414253
> 
> And there's nothing there.
> 


What does this mean? There's no building at the address?

Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it

[Charles Hope]

Rossi is a businessman who wants to make money.  Solid testing would be awesome 
marketing but he doesn't want to attract attention, yet he invites AP reporters 
to observe tests. He doesn't need black box tests because he already has 
customers, and though a satisfied customer is the best marketing available, his 
customers are all sworn to secrecy? He is fine with shoddy demoes because he's 
from the Old School. He just wants to sell devices, but not too many, and yet 
every device sold could be torn apart and duplicated.  He doesn't have a patent 
because the one he filed was intentionally absurd. 

The rationalization required to describe a self consistent narrative out of 
these random, contradictory facts is mind boggling. 


On Nov 26, 2011, at 20:45, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> Terry, take a moment and google and review the cases of:
> 
> Bedini
> Dennis Lee
> Sniffex (and it's $100 million lethal successors such as the ADE651,
> GT200, H3 Tec, HEDD1, AL-6D)
> Perendev
> Mylow
> Jeff Otto
> Carl Tilley
> Aviso
> Any scam of the day at peswiki.com (Sterling cycles them through more
> than once a week)
> and don't forget a detailed study of Steorn
> Any HHO scam, one of which recently killed three participants in a Los
> Angeles suburb and blew up a building
> 
> And there are many, many others I could look up but it probably
> wouldn't sway you one bit.
> 
> All of the above are scams, scammers, and con men.  Most are investor
> scams rather than product scams.  A few have been caught.  Some are
> convicted felons, like Rossi.  Most don't get caught-- at least not
> for a while and not for every scam.  Some scams are unusually deadly
> -- for example explosive detector scams which killed a dozen people on
> camera in Thailand and possibly hundreds or thousands of anonymous
> people in Iraq and wasted about a hundred million dollars in US aid to
> Iraq.
> 
> Do you live in a world of blissful innocence in which everyone is
> honest and you can believe what they say simply because they say it?
> 

Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston

[Charles Hope]

That's enough with the personal attacks.  

So the client is the American military, who has hired Fioravanti to take 
possession of their goods, and though the branch wants to keep their identity 
secret, it nevertheless insisted on the publicity of the October 28th test?

Am I clear?




On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:49, Marcello Vitale  wrote:

> MY says there is no client. Let me explore the logical consequences of this 
> revelation. Because it's a fact. MY said it, and it fits Occam's razor, which 
> says (I am sure I don't need to remind you) that "whatever MY points to as 
> the simplest theory, is indeed true".
> 
> Therefore, October 28 was all a big show, with actors and dancers. Yet, Rossi 
> is not turning around and selling retail, or selling stocks. Not making money 
> in any way. Not using the advertisement he paid for, if you will. It's as if 
> a company would launch a huge ad campaign, but not put the advertised product 
> in stores. "Buy my ecat! Available 2013! Please, don't send money now!" 
> 
> Ah, sure, except he is already making money: from those "secret investors 
> bound to strict secrecy agreements" who paid him in secret money drawn in a 
> secret currency nobody else knows about, which of course would at least 
> explain the financial crisis. Then, why did Rossi have to make that show, 
> anyway? Show the investors he is selling? Then they would start asking for a 
> return on the investment. No, no, the R&D money leeches are always just a few 
> weeks away from a salable product. It doesn't compute.
> 
> Maybe he just wanted to laugh at us? Or maybe he wanted to make sure MY, 
> certainly his most feared competitor, was kept busy writing about it and not 
> do any work? But if Rossi is a scammer, the competitor of a scammer is 
> another scammer. OK, I guess I'm onto something, I think all the passages in 
> the logical chain do make sense, if one starts from the assumption that Rossi 
> is a scammer, arriving to the conclusion that MY is also a scammer seems 
> almost unavoidable.
> 
> Which water car are you selling, MY?
> 
> MY theory is the simplest!
> 
> :- :-) :-)
> 
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Charles Hope  
> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2011, at 19:49, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> 
> He claims to have a self-destruct mechanism built in. 
> 
> OK.  So you hire some munitions experts who defuse such things for a living.  
> If you buy a megawatt plant, you get 100 tries to disarm the mechanism.  You 
> can try freezing it ... in liquid nitrogen if necessary.  You can examine it 
> first non-destructively any way you want including the examination Rossi 
> forbade Celani to do during a demo.  I can't believe for enough money you 
> couldn't break anything Rossi could put in.  And remember, Rossi is limited 
> by safety issues.
> 
>  
> Why did he promise to never sell to the military, then turn around to sell to 
> them as his flagship client?
> 
> My theory is the simplest:  that there is no client.   
> 
>  

Re: [Vo]:Short report on Kullander's cold fusion lecture

[Charles HOPE]

Why would you try to make billions selling knockoff ecats? I don't know,
but the thought might occur to some. He can prevent you from doing this by
selling it to you at a cheap price? And offering tech support?



On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> Rossi seems confident that will not happen or it will take some time. Why
> would I do that if he sells to me at a good price and provides excellent
> support? Selling price is not everything in deciding who I buy goods from.
> Going for the cheapest price is a well proven way to get ripped off. He is
> quoting public 10 kW system at $0.54 / Watt with a min life of 20 years.
> Wonder what he quotes for 100 MWs?
>
> AG
>
>
>
> On 11/25/2011 2:59 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 23:08, Aussie Guy E-Cat
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  Sign a contract for delivery, put your money into Escrow and do what
>>> ever Black Box test you wish. What is so hard to understand?
>>>
>>> AG
>>>
>>
>> What's hard to understand is how Rossi will prevent you from chopping
>> open your new ecat, analyzing the catalyst, and sending it off to china for
>> mass production? This would make more sense than using it to heat your tool
>> shed.
>>
>>
>


-- 
Never did I see a second sun
Never did my skin touch a land of glass
Never did my rifle point but true
But in a land empty of enemies
Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want
A uranium angel
Crying “behold,”
This land that knew fire is yours
Taken from Corruption
To begin anew

Re: [Vo]:Short report on Kullander's cold fusion lecture

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 23, 2011, at 23:08, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> Sign a contract for delivery, put your money into Escrow and do what ever 
> Black Box test you wish. What is so hard to understand?
> 
> AG


What's hard to understand is how Rossi will prevent you from chopping open your 
new ecat, analyzing the catalyst, and sending it off to china for mass 
production? This would make more sense than using it to heat your tool shed. 

Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 24, 2011, at 19:49, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
> 
> I'm curious.  How do you think Rossi protects his IP when he sells 100 of the 
> E-cats in a batch to an unnamed client.
> 
> I answered that question already. Please reread my message.
> 


He claims to have a self-destruct mechanism built in. 



> 
> There is no smoking gun for fraud.  But Rossi behaves exactly and 
> consistently like free energy scammers who in the past ripped off millions 
> from investors.
> 
> He also behaves exactly like a legitimate businessman who does not have a 
> patent, and is having difficulty getting one. Everyone knows it is difficult 
> to get a patent for cold fusion. As far as I know, it is impossible in the 
> U.S.
> 


But Rossi says it's not cold fusion. The patent application he tried lacked the 
catalyst. How can he get protection for the catalyst if he doesn't reveal it in 
the application?

Why did he promise to never sell to the military, then turn around to sell to 
them as his flagship client?

Re: [Vo]:Report on Rossi's visit to Boston

[Charles Hope]

So far, nobody seems to be able to predict Rossi's actions as well as Mary can. 
The rest of us are stumped, but her hypothesis explains the behavior. 



On Nov 24, 2011, at 17:07, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> We don't know that was what went down.
> 
> AG
> 
> 
> On 11/25/2011 8:03 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> A friend wrote to me: "Only Andrea could meet with a senator to ask for 
>> financial incentives to build a factory and refuse to allow them to test, 
>> huh?"
>> 
>> - Jed
>> 
> 

Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy

[Charles Hope]

I'm finding Cude's responses informative in this thread, and it seems to me 
that he's adequately proven his case now that dispute has been withdrawn. 



On Nov 23, 2011, at 17:49, David Roberson  wrote:

> This is getting a bit out of hand.  It does not make sense for me and this 
> poster to continue to state the exact opposites over and over as in the 
> broken record responses that have clogged up the vortex.  I am happy to 
> respond to anyone who has a valid point to make, but I do not see any purpose 
> in repeating the same things.
>  
> Yes, I have read your responses(Cude) and find them lacking.   Should I tell 
> you that I find them informative just to make you happy?   I fail to see 
> where you come up with your information, as it does not result in a logical 
> sequence of events or explain ECAT performance.
>  
> Your agreements are inconsistent and attempt to cover both sides of the 
> discussion.  Forgive me to say this but you just do not understand what you 
> suggest.
>  
> I promise to monitor any valid responses that our members require, but will 
> not continue to repeat myself just for your(Cude) convenience.  That comes 
> close to the definition of insanity.
>  
> If you come up with a valid point, I will certainly respond as I intend to 
> seek the truth concerning operation of the ECATs.  I have not, and will not 
> defend positions which are not reasonable and the source of any new 
> information will not be discriminated against, even if he is a confirmed 
> skeptic.
>  
> I just want to make one main comment.  The suggestion that the power output 
> is consistent with an average of 70 kW to 470 kW is patently in error.  I 
> might consider a range of 350 kW to 500 +kW because of the suggestion that 
> each ECAT has about 8 liters of volume that can be filled by water under the 
> worst case condition.  Likewise, the upper limit would be increased if the 
> water level is dropping during the test.   The 479 kW average output power 
> calculation obtained by the engineer is acceptable to me and he is an expert 
> at his art.
>  
> Dave
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joshua Cude 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:11 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is 
> clear that these responses do not represent reality.  The poster is convinced 
> that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted 
> otherwise.
> 
> >You expressed your conviction that Rossi was right before you even 
> >considered my arguments, so *you* clearly  started with a conclusion. 
> >Considering what you said, it is clear that there is no level of proof that 
> >will convince you that Rossi's demos >(including the last one) do not need 
> >nuclear reactions to explain them.
>  
> Show me real evidence and I will accept it.  Otherwise, it is not going to 
> matter.
> 
> >The fact is that the reported measurements are consistent with power output 
> >(average) from 70 kW to 470 kW, and if you accept partially filled ecats, 
> >from 9 kW to 470 kW. Lower power is more plausible given the slow warm-up 
> >period.
>  
> Saying this over and over does not make it true.  The evidence is 
> overwhelmingly against this.
>  
>   I stand by all of the statements that I made and all of the evidence 
> supports them. 
> 
> >Again, the best you can say is that it is consistent with them. Your 
> >description is *not* required by the evidence. That's a big difference. One 
> >you clearly failed to absorb in your education.
>  
> That sounds like an insult.  Try to improve your tone.
> 
> There is no virtually no evidence to support the water continues through 
> without vaporization position. 
> 
> >Not without vaporization. Without *significant* vaporization. Another huge 
> >difference because of the ratio of 1700 between the volumes. A tiny bit of 
> >vaporization means the output is almost all gas by volume. That's another 
> >point you don't seem to >understand.
>  
> You never explain the trap.  Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
> I tried to make this system fit in the beginning, but found many holes that 
> are left unanswered.
> 
> >All the ones you have mentioned, I have countered.
>  
> Sorry, but this is just not true.  None have been countered effectively.
>  
>   The valve being closed issue is false, since the valve is after the trap. 
> 
> >I've been harping on the valve for days, and now finally you give your 
> >counter-argument? And this is it? Did you even look at the video? There are 
> >2 valves. One leading to the heat exchanger, which is open. And one leading 
> >to the trap, which is clearly >closed at 3:00.
>  
> Please review the video.  The trap is between the ECAT system and the closed 
> valve.  Closing the valve will stop the high speed vapor you suggest that 
> carries the water past.  W

Re: [Vo]:its been great

[Charles Hope]

I've tossed a few posters into my filter, generally for an excess of unamusing 
puns, but I never understood the theory of compounding the annoyance with long 
announcements of same. 



On Nov 21, 2011, at 0:56, Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

> Apparently, Mary is less pathological case than Cude, but problem is that she 
> is a perpetual motion machine that goes endlessly onwards and onwards without 
> need for input energy (food). Like she has moral oblication to protect poor 
> and consideration inable investors from getting cheated.
> 
> It would be nice if we could introduce her and other hyperactive posters a 
> special rule that there is a two post per day limit for messages that contain 
> quoted material and after the quota is exceeded there should be required 24 
> hour delay before reply can be sent. This would effectively prevent inboxes 
> to overflow without limiting too much discussion. Actually, it should enhance 
> the quality of discussion, because people would think more carefully what is 
> relavant to say.
> 
> For filtering people, usually it is plausible to filter not just messages 
> that come from the address jounivalko...@gmail.com, but also messages where 
> the body contain a phrase "Jouni Valkonen" or email address. This way also 
> replies will get filtered.
> 
> Also with filtering with Gmail, instead of diverting them into thrash bin, it 
> would be better to mark them as "read" automatically. This way it is easy to 
> ignore them in threads, but if there are new topics posted they still appear 
> in the inbox and will get noted, although not necessarily read.
> 
> —Jouni
> 
> Ps. After Mary came here I have in my inbox more than 70 threads that contain 
> unread messages. I would say that there is definitely a problem with posting 
> frequency.
> 
> 
> On Nov 21, 2011 1:33 AM, "Daniel Rocha"  wrote:
> Jed, that is NOT possible. He would still see people answering the same 
> things over and over again. What makes MY annoying is not the arguments, but 
> the repetition. But the repetition is not only hers, it is also from whoever 
> answer. So, it won't work just blocking. 
> 
> 2011/11/20 Jed Rothwell 
> Esa Ruoho  wrote:
> 
> you guys had a real nice list going. then mary yugo joined. im out of here.
> 
> Why don't you just block out Mary Yugo's message? Problem solved.
> 
> I'll do that in a week or so, and stop responding.
> 
> - Jed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
> 

Re: [Vo]:its been great

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 20, 2011, at 18:45, Akira Shirakawa  wrote:

> On 2011-11-21 00:33, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>> Jed, that is NOT possible. He would still see people answering the same
>> things over and over again. What makes MY annoying is not the arguments,
>> but the repetition. But the repetition is not only hers, it is also from
>> whoever answer. So, it won't work just blocking.
> 
> With Mozilla Thunderbird (an external email client) it's possible. It can 
> kill completely threads and thread *branches* created by filtered users, if 
> desired. You would however still see messages from the many users on vortex-l 
> who appear to reply in a non-standard manner, splitting threads in multiple 
> pieces.
> 
> (that's very annoying in my opinion, together with HTML emails. The use of 
> properly configured email clients should be among group rules)
> 

Agreed. Also, new threads should not be renamed replies to other threads, 
because some smart email clients are not fooled by subject changes, and the new 
thread is hidden in the original. 

Incidentally, I find the list much more valuable with the contrasting 
contributions from Yugo, Cude, and Lomax, than when it becomes an echo chamber 
of agreement. 

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat guy: Hire a local HVAC engineering company!

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 20, 2011, at 13:05, Mary Yugo  wrote:


> 
> 
> And why in the world would you trust people who install large industrial 
> devices?  In my experience they have a lot of practical knowledge on how to 
> do their jobs according to instructions and protocols but not the formal 
> education to understand the reasons.  Rossi's device isn't an ordinary boiler 
> for goodness' sake!  It's a flippin' NUCLEAR FUSION REACTOR with claims of 
> awesome power capabilities.  I wouldn't let an HVAC engineer near it.



Really? What better way to apply best practices in standard, practical  
calorimetry?

Re: [Vo]:How should I demonstrate LENR, if I can reproduce it?

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 20, 2011, at 0:52, David Roberson  wrote:

> 
> I made a good faith effort to explain the system to one of them to no avail.  
> That particular one refused to discuss the operation of Rossi's 1 MW system 
> in details point by point. 
> It is apparent that he realized that his argument was being dismissed and ran 
> for cover.  Maybe he was afraid that he would have to accept the fact that 
> Rossi's test was valid
> once his misconceptions were revealed.


That's not what I saw. I saw you start with insults,  then begin rational 
dialogue, get frustrated, and switch back to the insults. You didn't give the 
scientific discussion with Cude more than two days. 

I would like to see more scientific discussion. 
> 

And also less dumb speculation about folks being paid agents of Big Oil. 

Re: [Vo]:How should I demonstrate LENR, if I can reproduce it?

[Charles Hope]

Rossi said he'd sell to anybody except the military. 

On Nov 19, 2011, at 23:17, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> On 11/20/2011 2:30 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
>> What Rossi could do would be twofold.  First, ally himself with some deep 
>> pockets.
> 
> Deep pockets? How much deeper can you get but the military? Who Rossi now 
> claims bought the first and the next 13 x 1 MW E-Cat plants. 

Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC "Monitoring the sector" (LENR)

[Charles Hope]

Moving into acceptance? Seems to me that governments are taking the same policy 
of Cude, Yugo, and Park. 





On Nov 18, 2011, at 0:09, "Craig Brown"  wrote:

> I never said they DID believe Rossi. This has nothing to do with Rossi, "this 
> sector" refers to LENR in general where Rossi is only one of a growing number 
> of people with interesting and commercially useful results.
> 
> Mary, you can try and spin their statement any way you like, but it's very 
> clear. Their Chief Scientific Advisor has just admittted that "it is 
> appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this sector". Their words, not 
> mine. If you are having difficulty in accepting the fact that LENR is now 
> moving slowly into mainstream acceptance by gov agencies then just say so.
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: UK's DECC "Monitoring the sector" (LENR)
> From: Mary Yugo 
> Date: Fri, November 18, 2011 2:53 pm
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Craig Brown  wrote:
> I recently contacted DECC (UK equivalent of DoE) to get their view on what 
> they thought about the ecat, and to see if they had even heard of it.  I got 
> quite an interesting reply. Trigger for "further action" is an interesting 
> phrase.
> 
> 
> "DECC is aware of this alleged power source: the DECC CSA, David MacKay FRS, 
> has read some of the literature and has met Sven Kulander, who has reviewed 
> an experiment and whose report is on the Defkalion website. The CSA's 
> judgment is that it is appropriate for DECC to maintain a watch on this 
> sector, with the key trigger for further action being the publication of the 
> work in a reputable peer-refereed journal, including full details so that 
> academic scientists can replicate the results." 
> 
> In other words, they don't believe Rossi either, on the evidence that he's 
> provided.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Many things about Rossi make no sense. He is not a predictable person, and 
> not easy to understand. His motivations are obscure. He is complicated. His 
> business practices seem risky and ineffective to me. He does many things that 
> make him look bad, as I have often pointed out.


Yes, his behavior is highly irrational. 

I have had conversations with schizophrenics, asking questions and agreeing 
with everything they say in order to understand their worldview. It doesn't 
work. Instead of converging upon a consistent although fantastic world, instead 
they take me on a ride, constantly introducing new ideas, contradicting 
previous ones, but they never notice the contradictions. There's no there 
there. 

Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 14, 2011, at 20:12, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Charles Hope  wrote:
> 
> 
> Rossi can be devious, but I have not seen any evidence that he lies about 
> engineering data. 

Except that you wrote 

> Mind you, the list of his statements we compiled includes some diametrically 
> opposite assertions:
> 
> http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints


Now, if he wants to maintain secrecy, a reasonable goal, why incessantly answer 
blog questions to the point where misdirection is then needed?





>  
> The only conclusion left is that the effect is real and Rossi is insane.
> 
> He does not seem insane to me. I have met many others like him. He is 
> suffering from the Inventor's Disease, but not as badly as some.
> 
> - Jed


You have said his psychology is completely irrelevant, but his behavior is not 
consistent with that of a pure scientist in pursuit of accuracy, a businessman 
maximizing his return, a con man maximizing his take, a secretive engineer, a 
publicity whore seeking attention. or anything. There is no story that can 
explain his random contradictory behavior, which is why the theories still fly 
around. 
> 

Re: [Vo]:a modest proposal

[Charles Hope]

On Nov 14, 2011, at 14:04, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>  My working theory on why he behaves that way is that he's scamming. 



There are two problems with that. 

He's shifty and does not inspire confidence. 

He's not taking all the money he's being offered. 

Re: [Vo]:Let Rossi Be Rossi?

[Charles Hope]

Granted that Rossi is producing anomalous heat, nevertheless absolutely 
everything else about this story stinks to high heaven. The conundrum which 
nobody can decipher is why someone with a real effect, or a scammer, would 
operate in such a bizarre manner. The only conclusion left is that the effect 
is real and Rossi is insane. 




Sent from my iPhone. 

On Nov 14, 2011, at 10:05, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> This thread is full of strawman arguments. No one is defending Rossi's 
> behavior, least of all me. We are saying:
> 
> His claims can be evaluated independently of his behavior, based strictly on 
> the laws of physics. This is true even though his experimental techniques are 
> sloppy.
> 
> His business decisions are his business, not anyone else's. His business 
> decisions have nothing to do with his claims.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Faith!

[Charles Hope]

I'm interested in your criticisms of mainstream physics. Is there widespread 
agreement with your opinions on, say, QED? If not, what is preventing 
mainstream physicists from seeing it?



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:25, Danny Ross Lunsford  wrote:

> My strongest reason for believing that Rossi is on the up and up - plain old 
> faith.
> 
> 1) QCD, the theory of the strong interaction that controls how protons and 
> neutrons interact, is a beautiful structure that is just about completely 
> useless. Almost nothing can be calculated with it. I don't mean a restricted 
> number of things - I mean just about nothing. Not only is it completely 
> sterile computationally, it is also absolutely useless as a heuristic 
> phenomenology to pave the way forward, the way the London theory of 
> superconductivity paved the way for the "real deal" of the 
> Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory.
> 
> 2) Neutrino physics is in complete disarray. The discovery of oscillations 
> and the failure to find the Higgs boson (something many of us thought would 
> never be found years ago) has thrown even the successful part of the standard 
> model, the electroweak sector, into chaos.
> 
> 3) Even bare QED, the quantum version of electrodynamics, is plagued with 
> mathematical ambiguities  that caused both Dirac and Feynman to ultimately 
> reject it. Despite all the hubris about calculations to 8 decimal places, as 
> a theory it is hopelessly flawed by reliance on ambiguous mathematics and 
> poorly defined physical concepts. As Dirac said, one ignore a quantity 
> because it is small, not because it is infinite!
> 
> In other words, the standard model, for all its publicity, is a ramshackle of 
> phenomenology that "borrowed" shall we say, its main tools from the theory of 
> superconductivity and pushed them way beyond the brink of reasonableness. 
> Even the fundamental idea, gauge invariance, does not last past square 1, and 
> one must sacrifice it to have a short range force.
> 
> Now consider the situation in 1820, when Faraday was working. Almost nothing 
> was known about the true nature of light, there was no cooperative theory of 
> electricity and magnetism, much less one that united them is a single scheme 
> - that would have to wait until 1865. But Faraday forged ahead with his 
> experiments. He discovered that a current loop in the presence of a magnet 
> experienced a torque - the first clue to their actual relationship. Within a 
> decade, people were making electric motors, completely without any real 
> understanding of what was going on! Yet that did not stop people from 
> tinkering and inventing and moving forward. It was the utility of the 
> phenomenon that drove the science, not the other way around! And of course 
> who in his right mind would have imagined the key to their relationship was 
> nothing but light itself? That had to wait for a epochal genius, Maxwell.
> 
> Friends, there are no epochal geniuses around. But we do have limited 
> knowledge - a great deal of phenomenology - about the nucleus, and a 
> bandy-legged, cross-eyed theory that at least makes up a sort-of consistent 
> whole. The LENR researchers of today are like Faraday - Rossi is like the 
> guys who made motors (and got rich!) - we wait for the Maxwell to cut the 
> Gordian knot. But for the knot to be cut - you first have to believe it is 
> possible. You have to have faith!
> 
> Did we really think we would go down into the mud again without ever making 
> any progress? Did we really imagine it was all over? Here's a brand new 
> phenomenon, exactly when one was desperately needed! both in the practical 
> world and in the abstract world of pure research. I could not  imagine that 
> we would all just turn out the lights, turn off our  computers, shut down our 
> universities and libraries, dismantle their buildings for firewood, and 
> simply return to the dark ages. I had faith that some day, something new 
> would happen. I am painfully aware of my own limitations, but that is exactly 
> why I'm allowed to believe, when the self-satisfied and arrogant skeptic can 
> only stew in his own cynicism.
> 
> It's faith that tells me, more than 1000 experts and gauges, that this is 
> real.
> 
> -drl
> 
> --
> "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin
> 

Re: [Vo]:Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.

[Charles Hope]

Jed, in your opinion, why does Rossi bother with these demoes, if they don't 
impress fence sitters, and he doesn't need new investors?



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Oct 28, 2011, at 22:37, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
> 
> This test has been a colossal disappointment.
> 
> I know Rossi pretty well by now, so I was expecting something like this. 
> Given who Rossi is and how he thinks, this wasn't a colossal disappointment.
> 
> Also, this was not a colossal disappointment to me because, hey, it did not 
> blow up. As readers here know, I was seriously worried the damn thing might 
> explode or irradiate the audience. I am relieved that nothing like that 
> happened. It seemed to work at 1/2 of nameplate power. For a reactor they 
> just finished building, that's fantastic. That is as good as 1 MW.
> 
> Rossi is much braver than I am, or much more foolhardy, or both.
> 
> As you hear in this video, I am not the only one who is worried about 
> radiation and other dangers. So are the Italian authorities, as well they 
> should be:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLAdGduQ50A
> 
> Rossi says here that they issued some sort of conditional permit, with 
> restrictions. That is the sort of thing you would expect for an experimental 
> device. That sounds plausible. It is what I would expect a responsible 
> government official to issue.
> 
> I still think it was much too big a reactor, and I still think the test 
> schedule was too fast. But evidently Rossi and the Italian officials share 
> some of my concerns about safety and that's good.
> 
> I predicted that a major company such as GE or Mitsubishi would want to get 
> involved in such risky tests. Perhaps I was wrong and this was a big company. 
> But if it was an up-and-coming profitable, risk-taking place such as 
> Manutencoop, that may be the kind of thing they would get into. Back in the 
> go-go late 1960s, companies such as Data General used to get involved in 
> risky start-up technology. According to "Soul of a New Machine" there were 
> rumors that Data General was involved in some actual physical risk and 
> possibly criminal behavior such as burning down the buildings of rival 
> companies.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Customer is not who is?

[Charles Hope]

Maybe there was an acquisition since the arrangement was made. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Oct 22, 2011, at 12:29, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> If somebody can understand this. please explain:
> 
> Mattia Battistich
> October 22nd, 2011 at 9:59 AM
> Dear Dr. Rossi,
> 1) A few weeks ago I remember reading a quote on you saying that by mid 
> October, a week before the test scheduled for the 28th, you would have 
> revealed the location where your first 1MW plant customer comes from, and 
> that by then it would clear to everybody who it was. Considering less then a 
> week separates us from the 28th are you still inclined to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> Andrea Rossi
> October 22nd, 2011 at 10:38 AM
> Dear Mattia Battistich:
> 1- USA; is an Entity that wants not to be disclosed, for its particularity; 
> this does not depend from me, the Customer is not the same we supposed would 
> have been. As Eraclitus wrote “…all changes, and the water flowing along a 
> river is never the same…”
> 
> I awfully regret interrupting my philosophy studies many years ago.
> I know reallly a lot of Companies, but no one with the above
> characteristics.
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
> 

Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.

[Charles Hope]

I'm just interested in what kind of unpowered system can use insulation to 
increase its temperature after the power has been shut off. 

It seems to me Jed has a point. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Oct 17, 2011, at 21:37, Robert Leguillon  
wrote:

> Mr. Rothwell never attacked me personally. He merely labeled all remaining 
> skeptics as ignorant/blind/foolish/etc. I think that there is still room to 
> question the results, and I'm certainly not the only one. I think that the ad 
> hominems can stifle open communication, and I thought that they did not have 
> place here.
> Now, in questioning the thermocouples, I'm apparently violating the laws of 
> physics and
> without a 7th grade education. A public forum should be a safe environment 
> from ad hominems, but maybe I misunderstood. 
> I may not have a "degree in Japanese", but I was studying quantum mechanics 
> at Fermilab while still in high school.  Nevertheless, I'll take a back seat, 
> or "get out of the kitchen" if this is how you guys cook.
> 
> Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
>> Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11-10-17 03:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
>>> 
 Robert,
 
 You state:
 
 You [Mr. Rothwell] may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
> personal attacks that are troubling.
> 
 Where has Mr. Rothwell attacked you personally?
 
>>> 
>>> Well, if Robert is claiming that there was no energy generated, then the
>>> item from Jed which he quoted would apply to him, and that sure sounds like
>>> an ad hominem to me:
>>> 
>>> "Skepics who claim that ... there was no energy generated ... are ignorant.
>>> They lack 7th grade knowledge of physics."
>>> 
>>> That is not an attack on the arguments.  That is an attack on the skeptics,
>>> themselves.  Jed has personally attacked /all/ "Rossi skeptics", it would
>>> seem.
>>> 
>> 
>> It would not be an attack on Robert if Robert is, in fact, in the 7th grade.
>> He might be. Or his science education may have ended then.
>> 
>> There are many people who have no knowledge of science beyond junior high
>> levels. I have met some high and mighty Wall Street investment bankers
>> interested in cold fusion who would not know the Second Law of
>> Thermodynamics if it bit them on the butt.
>> 
>> Such people are common in the U.S., and always have been. Read Mark Twain
>> and you will see.
>> 
>> Being ill-educated it not dishonorable. What is dishonorable is to refuse to
>> educate yourself more; to challenge your assumptions; or to perform a simple
>> test in the kitchen to see what happens to hot water in a poorly insulated
>> metal vessel in 4 hours.
>> 
>> I am pretty sure this is junior high level material because somewhere I have
>> a junior high physics textbook, in Japanese. I recall this kind of thing was
>> covered in it. Granted, their classes tend to be more advanced than ours.
>> Anyway, I can't find it.
>> 
>> - Jed

Re: [Vo]:More drama: open letter to Christos Stemmenos from Defkalion GT

[Charles Hope]

I'm sorry, but how does Stremmenos' letter ruin Rossi's chances of obtaining 
damages?

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Oct 13, 2011, at 15:42, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> Thanks, Akira ... More drama indeed! Move over, James Bond there is new 
> poker-faced gambler in town.
> 
> This is looking almost like financial suicide on Rossi's part (assuming DGT 
> is not bluffing). AR has made all the wrong strategic moves and with 
> mind-boggling naiveté. In contrast, the low key and well-worded response from 
> DGT is superbly crafted from a legal standpoint, whereas everything coming 
> from the Rossi camp is self-inflicted damage.
> 
> Could Stemmenos end up being a double-agent or "plant" from Defkalion, whose 
> main function has been to cleverly and completely eliminate any chance of 
> Rossi obtaining damages for breach of contract? If so, Stemmenos has 
> performed admirably.
> 
> It is easily possible that DGT may NOT have had money problems after all, but 
> nevertheless desperately wanted to wiggle their way out of an expensive 100 
> million Euro contract and when Rossi could not meet a milestone, they say an 
> opening. Apparently DGT also discovered an alternative technology to E-Cat - 
> and they accomplished this in a most impressive fashion by tricking Rossi 
> into believing that he still had the upper hand, since he had never disclosed 
> the secret ... which may not have been so valuable, after all. 
> 
> Apparently DGT discovered either the secret catalyst itself, or more likely a 
> substitute, and on their own initiative; and Rossi refuses to understand 
> this. Rossi has been played. He apparently even wants to hire away the 
> scientist who found the alternative process. Pity.
> 
> IMO - the past several months may have cost Rossi most of the value of 
> whatever he had to begin with, in terms of value of IP - even if we discount 
> the ludicrous and unenforceable patent.  He has been set-up in such an 
> artistic fashion by his opponents that he is still in the dark just as Act 
> 111 is nearly complete ... and miraculously does not realize that he (EFA, 
> Leonardo, Ampenergo, etc) and NOT his former associates violated the terms of 
> the agreement - and therefore cannot collect either Royalties or the huge 
> lump sum payment, while at the same time allowing DGT to compete worldwide 
> (instead of just that valuable Balkan market :)
> 
> ... and now we learn DGT may compete with what is claimed to be a superior 
> product. Plus, DGT can now redirect that 100 million Euro into a factory and 
> distribution network of their own. They have seem to have pulled off a 
> real-life Casino Royale.
> 
> Of course, this conclusion is valid only if DGT has indeed duplicated the 
> technology successfully. 
> 
> Given the circumstances, it seems at least arguable that they have done this, 
> and that Stemmenos may have been their ace-in-the-hole, so to speak.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Akira Shirakawa 
> A translation has been posted today on 22passi instead:
> 
> http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/stremmenos-stance-on-defkalion-gts-10.html
> 
> Cheers,
> S.A.
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:I love Obama, great speach on jobs, patents too

[Charles Hope]

One can make the case that displaced old workers can't be retrained, and so 
should be kept alive on transfer payments, but their children should be able to 
take part in the new economy, as software workers, so there should never be a 
permanently displaced class. 

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:14, "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
 wrote:

> From Harry Veeder
> 
>  
> 
> > >Actually, creating jobs is rather irrelevant goal, because it is more
> 
> > >important to create automation and robots who does the productive
> 
> > >work. Of course, creating automation, does return into innovation.
> 
> > >
> 
> > >As the wealth is acquired from automation, then it is possible to
> 
> > >create jobs into service sector by boosting the purchasing power of
> 
> > >median people by introducing basic income.
> 
>  
> 
> I disagree. Vehemently so. Perhaps I should actually say that the above 
> premise misses an important point that I will attempt to clarify – as I see 
> it.
> 
>  
> 
> It is inevitable that outsourcing, which is then permanently followed by 
> automation & robotics is what is in store for us, what the above comment 
> completely misses is how will we go about employing increasing numbers of 
> individuals who have been misplaced as a result of their traditional jobs 
> having been outsourced and eventually taken over by automation and robotics.
> 
>  
> 
> A subtle point the above premise may have gotten completely wrong is the fact 
> that as automation takes over more and more jobs in traditional manufacturing 
> sectors it is NOT necessarily true that these misplaced workers will end up 
> being reemployed in various service sector areas of the economy. The problem 
> many politicians seem oblivious to and subsequently refuse to acknowledge to 
> their constituents is the fact that increasing numbers of service sector jobs 
> are ALSO ending up being automated. This is happening because it is far 
> cheaper for companies providing various "services" to automate rather than to 
> continue employing troublesome people who need expensive health insurance and 
> other "bennies" like unions that management hates. For example, the last time 
> I called my cable company to complain about the fact that my internet service 
> was down I never talked to a human. The ENTIRE phone "conversation" was 
> handled through a combination of voice recognition and recorded responses 
> that guided me step-by-step through a complex process that helped me restore 
> internet access. At my place of employment, more and more individuals we 
> employ for computer related work are contractors hired from India and China – 
> (Outsourcing). Sooner or later many of these “outsourced” jobs will end  up 
> being automated as well. Other service sectors that one might think would be 
> impervious to the ravages of automation are also in danger of being replaced, 
> such as the lawyer industry. Specialized search engines can take over many 
> tasks previously employed by lawyers whose job had been to search text for 
> various rulings.
> 
>  
> 
> National wealth will NOT be created if the ONLY thing we see happen to our 
> nation is the inevitable implementation of more and more automation. All that 
> will produce is increasing numbers of individuals thrown out of job market 
> where they may remain permanently unemployed or underemployed as they 
> desperately take up the only kinds of jobs they can find, such as flipping 
> burgers at McDonalds or manning cash registers at Wall Mart or Office Depot. 
> Time after time, amount of income these displaced workers end up earning 
> after being "reemployed" is far less than what they were previously earning, 
> and this inevitably results in the fact that they will not earn enough income 
> to be able to afford the very fruits that automation is supposed to offer 
> them.
> 
>  
> 
> This issue has been going on for years and it is insidious. It is a major 
> contributing factor to our current economic woes. It is vividly described in 
> detail by author, Martin Ford in his book "The Lights in the Tunnel" which 
> Mr. Rothwell originally brought to our attention not long ago.
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/
> 
>  
> 
> It's worth reading.
> 
>  
> 
> As a nation, as a world, we will have to devise ways in which to both evenly 
> and fairly redistribute income (currency) amongst the population regardless 
> of whether these individual are employed in the traditional sense or not. Our 
> economies are consumer based. This means that if too many remain unemployed 
> they cannot consume anything, and our economy tanks permanently. It will make 
> no difference if automation produces everything we need if too many 
> individuals have no means at their disposal in which to earn a decent income 
> in which to earn goods and services that end up being created via through 
> automation.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> 
> www.OrionWor

Re: [Vo]:Greek press report: Defkalion has not applied for license or safety testing

[Charles Hope]

If I understand the translation, this means that Defkalion never requested 
permission to build a plant where it was thought they would. How does this 
reflect poorly upon Rossi?

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Sep 3, 2011, at 10:56, Susan Gipp  wrote:

> Another evidenche that the whole e-cat story is built over a pile of lies
> How long Rossi will last with this joke ?
> 
> 2011/9/3 Jed Rothwell 
> See:
> 
> http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/9154-xynidis-kontos-aitisi-ergostasio-syntixi-defkalion-.html
> 
> 
> A translation sent to me by someone (maybe done by Google):
> 
> 
> No applications for plant in Xanthi
> 
> "With new negative letters answered, as expected, the question submitted by 
> the MP [member of parliament?  M. Y.] Xanthi New Republic to 
> competentministers on the issue of environmental impacts from the possible 
> establishment of Xanthi plant devices producing energy from fusion of 
> hydrogen-nickel.
> 
> After the replies of the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Environment 
> and the Ministry of Development responded to Members of the Southwest there 
> is filed an application for the company Defkalion for this investment and 
> therefore can not assess the potential environmental burden .   
> 
> Indeed the response of the Ministry of Development, signed by the Deputy 
> Minister Socrates Xynidis.
> 
> In this report: "In response to the above question tabled in the House by 
> Congressman Alexander Short [That's a translation of Alexander Kontos -- 
> M.Y.] , you know that it has submitted documentation to permit installation 
> and operation of industrial plant of this type»
> 
> Negative responses from Papakonstantinou - Sokos.
> 
> Respondents who were released from Alexander Short [Kontos], included a cover 
> of the Environment Minister George Papakonstantinou and a response by the 
> Head of the Department of Industry that the YPEKA not submitted any 
> application. Also by the Secretary of ADMTH letter sent by the Director of 
> the relative address of Apoakentromensi Administration Lambrini Rizos.
> 
> There is no known application for approval of building fusion power 
> nickel-hydrogen has not been filed and that of the crop [??] should be 
> ensured through the Environmental Impact Study filed in each case."
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:What the Breakup Means

[Charles Hope]

Quite impressive for a company we were told was thrown together hastily this 
spring.


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Aug 7, 2011, at 13:39, Akira Shirakawa  wrote:


>>> They have dozens of experts and hundreds of millions of dollars, and a 
>>> board of directors that would be suitable for any Fortune 500 company, with 
>>> extensive experience in industry.
>> 
> 

 

Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax

[Charles Hope]

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Aug 6, 2011, at 18:54, "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
 wrote:


>  
> 
> ... They don't want to hear about the fact that when government employees 
> "spend" their money it boosts the economy in exactly the same manner as what 
> would be "spent" from individuals who work and earn income out in the free 
> market. Money is money. It makes no difference where the currency comes from 
> nor how the currency is eventually spent. 
> 

No. Creating products according to market demand is different than creating 
them without any market demand. Otherwise the unemployed could all get rich 
hiring each other to create and sell snotty tissues and books filled with with 
random words.  


Has it been that long since the USSR crumbled that we have forgotten this? 
Leftists in power all over the world have to come face the superiority of 
markets to determine what should be produced, except for the west, where they 
are mercifully protected from the consequences of their ideas. 

Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax

[Charles Hope]

It's not reserved for poor countries, but weak countries. Thus, poor Libya, 
having given up its nuclear ambitions, gets smacked around with a large trout, 
whereas poor DPRK is allowed to fire missiles randomly around its region, and 
it receives a finger wag. 

Craig, truly brilliant post.


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:04, Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

> 2011/8/6 Craig Haynie :
>> You propose to end war with a
>> global democracy, but wars will never end as long as we give the power
>> seekers the ability to wage war.
> 
> I have not seen a war in 66 years, because I live in civilized and
> rich country. Believe me, war is something that is only reserved for
> poor people. If we end poverty, we will end all wars. 

Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction

[Charles Hope]

Consider how futile it should be to make a prediction six months out, as Rossi 
did regarding October, if reliability was still being addressed the entire 
time. That does not smell right. One can only predict confidently about well 
controlled processes. Why arbitrarily box oneself in like that?



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Aug 3, 2011, at 11:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

>  However, if Rossi fails to deliver in October…
> 
> And I'd now bet that Rossi will fail to deliver. Rossi's recent comments 
> indicate that he is still struggling with reliability. 

Re: [Vo]:Kimbler's Parts

[Charles Hope]

Was going to blog about this tonight. The punchline is that, contrary to the 
graph, the isotopic composition is very terrestrial. 


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Aug 1, 2011, at 13:37, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Like Art's Parts, these artifacts of the Roswell crash show isotopic 
> anomalies:
> 
> http://www.openminds.tv/test-confirms-roswell-debris-733/
> 
> We had always planned to check small animal lairs if we ever had a
> chance to visit the crash site.
> 
> T
> 

Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy

[Charles Hope]

Among all the Millises and the Millses, I'd say Milli was practically born for 
this field. 

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Jul 27, 2011, at 16:04, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> See:
> http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/viareggio-cold-fusion-conference-science-politics-and-an-italian-competitor/
> 
> 
> QUOTE:
> 
> 19.10 – Among the public Milly Moratti takes the word and states that there 
> are clearly now experimental evidences of Cold Fusion.
> 
> Now, for the one who do not know, Milli Moratti is the wife of Massimo 
> Moratti, one of the richest man in Italy and owner of the Saras Petrol 
> Refinery, The biggest in Italy and one of the biggest in Europe.
> That’s a 5,3 Billion Euro Company.
> She has money and the political knowledge.
> 
> 
> [I have never heard of this person.]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Moratti
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...

[Charles Hope]

I would have guessed the water would stop swirling within 10s, long before 
boiling, which in my oven I attain by setting it to 5:30. 




> The reason for swirling it was just that a lot of microwave ovens seem to 
> heat from the top, and if you don't get it swirling, you end up with a cup of 
> tepid water with a layer of boiling water a fraction of an inch thick 
> floating on the top. I'd actually have guessed that water in motion was 
> *less* likely to superheat than still water.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Charles Hope]

This style of quotation is nonstandard and difficult to follow for large 
messages. Regular email clients handle the creation and display of nested 
quotations in an agreeable manner, which your formatting breaks. If you prefer 
to use a word processor for composition, please begin a reply, copy that to the 
word processor and add in-line comments normally, and then email that. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Jun 2, 2011, at 14:06, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
> wrote:
> 
> Cude>>Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them.
> 
> Lomax> Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what Cude 
> claimed, using "his own designates." 
> 
> OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly weakened 
> if I make the same claim using "vetted observers" or something like that.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Charles Hope]

Doesn't take a genius to
> see that these two entities would just want to couple together naturally! 
> Cooper-pair.  
> 
> The Point being...
> The behavior in this case is simply a result of the makeup of the physical 
> structures.
> 
> Is there any doubt that one could find a mathematical model for this physical 
> model???  No doubt at
> all... And it would probably be a whole lot simpler and easily extensible 
> compared to what we have
> now.
> 
> What is missing from much of physical theory is a physical model first... 
> Before the mathematics.
> After relativity and QM came along, the mathematical physicists began to 
> dominate theoretical
> physics and the importance of having a foundation of a physical model 
> disappeared.
> 
> -Mark
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:48 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
> 
> How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory?
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Charles Hope]

Not to be troublesome, but if you're looking for a mathematical answer, but you 
don't want the one based on our best understanding (relativity and 
electrostatics) then I'm even more confused about what your question meant. 

At least if you were asking for a philosophical metaphysical answer, your 
rejection of Cude's essay would make sense. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 27, 2011, at 1:58, "Mark Iverson"  wrote:

> With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should 
> be well aware that most contributors on this list are probably at least as 
> knowledgeable as he, and probably much more so.  His statement about "the 
> language of physics is math" is obvious. And CH's suspicions are wrong...
> "I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written 
> mathematically." 
> Of course it could be written mathematically!
>  
> Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or 
> has absolutely NO relation to any real physical manifestations.  It is my 
> contention that some critical aspects of mainstream physical theories contain 
> such abstract mathematical constructs... I think it would be quite fruitful 
> to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based on rational 
> physical constructs.
> -Mark
> 
> 
> From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
> 
> 
> On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> 
>>  The language of physics is math. 
>> 
> 
> This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
> written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer 
> that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Charles Hope]

On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>  The language of physics is math. 
> 

This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer 
that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

[Charles Hope]

What a profound statement. Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 25, 2011, at 15:44, Rich Murray  wrote:

> Let's encourage non ad hominem, civil, polite, gracious, patient,
> evidence and detail oriented, genteel, lightly humorous, collaborative
> communication -- one of the finest cultural innovations in human
> history -- the destiny of any intrepid explorer is a path littered
> with mistakes.
> 
> Rich Murray
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Charles Hope]

How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory?


Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 25, 2011, at 20:33, "Mark Iverson"  wrote:

> Robin beat me to the punch... I was changing spark-plugs and serpentine belts 
> on my car!
> 
> Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and is 
> supposed to reflect
> physical reality.  My question was about the physical world -- what I was 
> asking got was a rational,
> qualitative, cause and effect sort of explanation.
> 
> As Robin stated, twice now, and I'll state it a third time, 
> "The perpendicular nature of E and B fields existed PRIOR to Maxwell, or even 
> cavemen, or even life
> on this planet!"
> 
> I'm afraid that this reflects very poorly on JC's understanding of what is 
> more fundamental, the
> experiment (physical reality, facts) or model (theory).  JC has shown a great 
> ability to regurgitate
> what he has read in his textbooks, in great detail, but his responses to this 
> simple question seems
> to indicate that he hasn't any idea of the difference between physical 
> reality and the mathematical
> models that attempt to explain what is observed.
> 
> Care to put your horse before the cart this time and give it another stab, 
> Joshua?  
> And you'd better not have any mathematical jargon in your answer...
> 
> PS: I mean, stab at explaining perpendicularity of E and B fields, not stab 
> your horse!
> :-)
> 
> -Mark 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:35 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
> 
> In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 17:54:32 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity 
>> and magnetism experiments.
> 
> ...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was already 
> evident.
> 
>> The resulting equations then predicted the existence of electromagnetic 
>> waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: "The conclusion was 
>> inescapable: light is "an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of 
>> waves" propogated in the ether."
> 
> True.
> 
>> The equations also require that the
>> field are perpendicular.
> 
> I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was 
> designed specifically to
> encompass this fact (otherwise it would have yielded incorrect results).
> 
> Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of 
> others and created an
> encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the perpendicular 
> aspect was already in that
> work.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> 

Re: [Vo]: Why did the engineer Rossi beat all the scientists? WAS: Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?

[Charles Hope]

This paper is pretty harsh. 
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/pdf/njp5_1_127.pdf It's difficult 
to imagine how the CQM advocates could have adequately addressed these 
questions. 

 

Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 21, 2011, at 3:23, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

> In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Fri, 20 May 2011
> 07:24:55 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> From Robin:
>> 
>>> [snip]
 Is there anyone who believes Mills' hydrino theory who also understands
 quantum mechanics?
>>> 
>>> Yes, Mills. :)
>>> 
>>> (Actually he's not the only one, there are probably quite a few, but far
>> less
>>> that would go out on a limb and admit it.)
>>> Personally I think QM is the norm, and Mills is an allowed exception,
>> which
>>> means that it happens some of the time.
>> 
>> Some of the time??? X'plain yourself Sir Robin! ;-)
> 
> Mills' ground state orbitals are spherical. In QM the electron travels 
> radially
> frequently passing through the nucleus. I think the latter is the norm, but I
> think "Bohr like" orbitals are possible, and occasionally happen (see Rydberg
> orbitals). IOW I don't think Millsian spherical orbitals are ruled out, I just
> don't think they are common. However under the right circumstances, I think 
> an H
> atom can be convinced to occupy such an orbital.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> 

Re: [Vo]: Why did the engineer Rossi beat all the scientists? WAS: Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?

[Charles Hope]

Is there anyone who believes Mills' hydrino theory who also understands quantum 
mechanics?

Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 15, 2011, at 16:08, "Mark Iverson"  wrote:

> I renamed this thread cuz I'd like to hear opinions as to WHY an engineer 
> succeeded where ALL the scientists failed in optimizing the excess heat and 
> controllability of whatever this reaction is???
>  
> In our conversation about Mills/BLP, Peter wrote:
> "His theory is OK, verified by experiment."
>  
> But an 'engineer' (i.e., someone not real knowledgeable about theoretical 
> foundations) optimized the excess heat effect and controllability of the 
> reaction in only a few years and with very little money compared to BLP (20 
> years and $60M)...
>  
> So either Mills' theory has serious errors or holes, or they have incompetent 
> scientists/engineering managers who are making  bad decisions as to what 
> tests/experiments to do, thus wasting alot of time and not achieving true 
> UNDERSTANDING of what variables affect the reaction.
>  
> If Mills' theories were accurate, then optimizing/manipulating the reaction 
> mechanisms would have happened by now... and they would have beat Rossi to 
> the market.  What's more likely is that the conclusions that come out of 
> Mills' theories have caused them to go down numerous 'dead-ends'... and 
> Mills' ego refuses to acknowledge that his theory needs some serious  
> revisions.
> -Mark
> 
> 
> From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 11:43 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
> 
> The reason is, in my opinion, that is very difficult to achieve
> a CONTINUOUS generation of energy- see my paper 
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/04/questions-preparing-swot-analysis-of-ni.html
>  what conditions are necessary for a new source of energy.
> 
> But I think this year (good for new energy, it seems) Randy will be on the 
> market with his CIHT technology.
> His theory is OK, verified by experiment. Technology is more difficult than 
> scientific experiments.
> Peter
> 
> 
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Mark Iverson  wrote:
> I would wager that the reason Mills hasn't got a commercial device, after 20 
> years and $60M, is because his theory is flawed...
> -Mark
> 
> 
> From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:46 PM
> 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
> 
> Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas is Randy Mills himself. 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
> 

Re: [Vo]:Beene and Blanton: Self-Runnier vs. 1 MW plant : Duel to the Death!

[Charles Hope]

Where was this suspicious pre-demo mentioned? 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 13, 2011, at 22:48, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> No disagreement to speak of - not to mention in a couple of months I might
> be arguing Terry's position and he might have mine. But the truth will out,
> and therefore let me state a present concern more succinctly. First, rent
> the movie "Boiler Room" if you have not seen it... for the entertainment
> value alone.
> 
> Second, there is evidence that an interim "pre-demo" will take place in 8-10
> weeks in Xanthi, Greece - invitation only - which will coincide with a
> founders stock offering. This will be a fully staged and produced "media
> event" featuring a working factory making E-Cats ... and with a quite few of
> them in apparent operation - but "do not touch" anything, or ask too many
> questions, even if you hear extravagant claims.
> 
> Since it is not the 'official' demo, nor the official IPO, there will be no
> skeptical criticism, and in the end no more facts will be known than now.
> The set-up of a good "pump and dump" is to get a percentage of shares out to
> well-connected investors and other brokers - who provide constant "pumping"
> action 'on the street' since they have priority for more. These touts and
> pundits will be televised in the media, praising the technology and begging
> for more stock. Feeding frenzy ensues.
> 
> Good reason to hire a stockbroker, instead of a technologist or real
> manager, to head your company. I have heard that it is possible for a
> startup to obtain authorization to issue 100 billion shares with no prior
> record of a real product - but that could be only in Calgary or BC :)
> 
> None of this is a huge problem if you have a rock-solid product to offer
> with nothing to hide ... hmmm ... kinda like the Ballard fuel cell ?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> 
> From: Terry Blanton 
>> Ah Finally!
>> 
>> Ladies and Gentlemen! Time for this evening's main attraction!
> 
> I hate to disappoint the audience; but, there will be no fight here.
> I understand Jones' opinion, respect his opinion and will defend to
> the death his right to express it.
> 
> But, opinions are like rectums, we all have them and they all stink.
> 
> Until the truth outs, it's all speculum.
> 
> T
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:A brief discussion on Permanent Magnet Motor configurations

[Charles Hope]

The aether that was debunked a century ago, or a different one?


Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 13, 2011, at 21:53, John Berry  wrote:

> 
> Well, explain how it is to be tested and we'll give it a shot.
> 
> T
> 
>  
> My opinion is that the conservation of energy is generally accurate and than 
> magnets and most conditions tend to be conservative.
> 
> However this is all dependent on the state of the underlying medium of matter 
> and energy, if you change this medium the rules can change and energy can 
> appear to be created or destroyed, whether it is actually created or 
> liberated from some near infinite storehouse of energy (ZPE if you will) is 
> only of philosophical concern.
> 
> The process as I understand it consists of creating a flux source, a motor, 
> buzzer or choke are all fine choices provided they are unshielded and the 
> magnetic circuit is open or leaky.
> 
> Then you have pickup coils (diodes and bulbs may also do some pickup), these 
> are coupled only most loosely to this primary flux generating circuit, the 
> pickup circuit can't be too directly connected to the flux source if you want 
> to loop it.
> Isolation can be achieved with an isolation transformer, capacitors but other 
> options have been used. (the pickup circuit is rarely ever grounded)
> 
> To reach OU power you need to engage the aether, this increases the energy 
> induced into the pickup circuit.
> 
> There are many ways to engage the aether but it is hard to know what will 
> prove to be sufficient.
> I would strongly recommend replication of Romero's Muller Generator, firstly 
> because he was almost certainly genuine. (if you want evidence of this there 
> are good arguments to be made including details)
> 
> This type of setup stands a very good chance of working.
> 
> The details have been provided and I can provide many suggestions on 
> stimulating the aether (vacuum, ZPE) if it does not initially work.
> 
> Replications should make use of the multi strand insulated wire (as that is 
> one means to engauge the aether) and be as close as practical to Muller's 
> specifications.
> 
> Tuning of the distance was something he did a lot of to get it to self run.
> 
> Alternately a study in the energy induced in a pickup circuit could be 
> undertaken without need to get into attempt to self run or even produce OU, 
> just showing increased energy being induced.
> 
> 
> Are you interested in replicating this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Let us exercise some common sense in terms of dimensional analysis.

[Charles Hope]

That's the mini supernova argument. We don't know what's inside the reactor, 
but we know it doesn't resemble a supernova, so we are obliged to assume that 
any copper found is just regular copper that migrated. It's way too fanciful to 
assume otherwise at this point. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 3, 2011, at 9:47, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
 wrote:

> Correct me if I have misunderstood the most important relevant facts
> being debated here, but I believe Jones is making a strong claim that
> the percentages of isotopes allegedly found distributed throughout the
> copper found within one of Rossi's used e-cats clearly indicates that
> the "Rossi-effect" cannot be nuclear in origin.
> 
> I've thought about this claim for a spell, but for now the only
> conclusion I can come up with is:
> 
> Why not? What do any of us really know about how Mother Nature chooses
> to go about rearranging isotopes such as those belonging to copper.
> For all we know the speculated Rossi-Effect may exploit "natural
> environmental conditions" that tend to encourage a natural
> distribution of copper isotopes, such as what we tend to find in the
> ground. Seems to me that at this stage of the game we just don't have
> enough facts at hand to warrant any kind of a definitive conclusion
> about what is considered a "nuclear" effect and what isn't.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, we know what the nuclear fizicists will say on the matter.
> What do they know. ;-)
> 
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> 

Re: [Vo]:The 12.4 kW claims of January 14 wrong?

[Charles Hope]

This very interesting paper 
http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~srf/isotopes/li1.pdf is all about isotope 
ratios varying from region to region. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Apr 30, 2011, at 15:56, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> From: Jed Rothwell
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Ø  Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 
> 1940s, would know that is wrong.  
> 
> JB: You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you 
> must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data?
> 
> Ø  JR: See the work of Townes and, for example, "Interstellar isotope ratios 
> from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra." These studies would not be 
> meaningful if isotopic ratios varied in different parts of the universe.
> 
>  
> 
> LOL. I see you haven’t understood this at all, let alone read Townes.
> 
>  
> 
> Townes measured the `primordial' abundance of the `light elements', in the 
> ISM. This has absolutely nothing to do with heavy elements in planets, all of 
> which have isotopes that come from second or third generation stars, and all 
> of which are vastly different from ‘primordial’ abundances, and each galaxy 
> will have incorporated literally trillions of unique isotope balances …
> 
>  
> 
> ….or do you really think that out earth has a primordial balance of copper - 
> which was unaffected by the stellar event which formed out sun? This is 
> preposterous. Again you are showing an incredible intellectual deficit in 
> this argument – and that reflects poorly on Rossi.
> 
>  
> 
> I am sure that in time, skeptics like Bob Park will pick up on this and beat 
> you into the dirt with it! It is so foolish for you to be promoting this kind 
> of bogosity!
> 
>  
> 
> There are no heavy elements in the ISM spectrum which can be measured 
> accurately BTW and subsequent stellar processing of the light elements has 
> altered the relative abundances in every single star if you look close 
> enough. That’s right every single star has its own ratio of deuterium to 
> hydrogen to helium, and every single nova also produced heavier elements such 
> as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in absolutely unique ratios.
> 
>  
> 
> Copper-63 exists in a different ratio on our own moon, for goodness sake! 
> There dozens of analyses of moon rocks online. When Kullander say it is 
> natural – that is for earth but do you really think that the Rossi reactor, 
> if one ever gets to the moon – will then magically shift gears and start 
> producing fusion debris that matches the natural abundance there?
> 
>  
> 
> Geeze can’t you see the shallowness of your position?  Stellar 
> nucleosynthesis is a function of initial mass and composition - and larger 
> mass stars and planets have isotopes which are very different from low mass - 
> so Townes work was on the ISM was essentially meaningless to this, and like 
> Newton’s work on alchemy – primitive!
> 
>  
> 
> Give it up Rothwell – you are beyond wrong and I do not want to make you look 
> even more imbecilic by continuing this thread ad infinitum – but if you want 
> that as part of the record, then so be it.
> 
>  
> 
> Please do take the time to read your references, though, as it makes things 
> work so much more smoothly …
> 
>  
> 
> Jones
> 
>  

Re: [Vo]:Spring constant in plasma oscillations

[Charles Hope]

I didn't see tensors mentioned in the Wikipedia page. Tensors of what degree? 
Wouldn't you be dealing with a distribution of them anyway?



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Apr 24, 2011, at 10:28, David Jonsson  wrote:

> I have really found a bad thing. On the link below they talk about effective 
> mass whewre they model the mass of the electron as a tensor instead of 
> calculating with the forces from surrounding atoms. It looks real bad. I was 
> planning on using the well known spring formula omega^2 = k/m and now m turns 
> out to be a tensor!
> 
> I think it is bad physics to insert the concept of effective mass tensor. It 
> is being detemined by measurements with various methods so it can include 
> other effects.
> 
> I think it would be better to assume that permeability and permittivity 
> changes in space. That leads to an apparent change in electron mass since it 
> increases the magnetic reluctance of the electron. Since the mass and charge 
> relation of an electron is fixed it is impossible to distinguish if an 
> apparent increase in inertia of the electron is due to mass increase or 
> change in its magnetic field. Since mass is to be considered fixed and 
> permeability (µ) and permittivity (€) variable I think it is better to stick 
> to that view.
> 
> I will use the classical electron mass with eventual alterations to € and µ 
> if needed.
> 
> David
> 
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 3:33 PM, David Jonsson  
> wrote:
> This might be an easy question but it is not on my mind right now.
> 
> I would like to determine the trajectory of the electrons in plasma 
> oscillations:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation
> 
> I need this in order to find out how big an eventual magnetic field from in 
> can be in the case of rotating medium. 
> 
> The plasma oscillation is like a thermal vibration in the sense that 
> electrons go back and forth. Since the central acceleration is different in 
> forwards and backwards motion the orbit of the electron is not linear but 
> sightly elliptic and thus rotating and giving cause to a magnetic field. 
> 
> I sit in a park in Stockholm and I try to determine this effect. Winter has 
> ceased and there are bumble bees, wasps and butterflies flying around here. 
> The first ones I have seen this year. i have 4 hours battery left on the 
> laptop and I hope this is enough for at least some partial results.
> 
> David
> 
> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf

[Charles Hope]

I was referring to the report Jones Beene refers to, unseen, by an unnamed 
author, which uses thermodynamics to raise questions. 


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:58, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Charles Hope wrote:
> 
>> Expert opinion, indeed. Not bad enough that the box is black but we're 
>> reacting to a secret report shown only to Levi, the contents of which can 
>> only be guessed at?
> 
> It is not a secret report shown to Levi, it is a public report made by Levi, 
> here:
> 
> http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf

[Charles Hope]

Expert opinion, indeed. Not bad enough that the box is black but we're reacting 
to a secret report shown only to Levi, the contents of which can only be 
guessed at?



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Apr 20, 2011, at 0:14, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> Robin.
> 
> My initial reaction is that the assumptions could be way off.
> 
> 
> The delta-T of 500K is too large, and the wall thickness of 2 mm is thin for 
> this application. There could be other problems too.
> 
> For 25 bar pressure, how are you going not to get by with 2 mm walls - more 
> like 6. If the temp gradient is like more like 300 - which would be water at 
> 350 K and interior at 650K, and the wall is 6mm - this might be more accurate.
> 
> Next, the actual conductance is some fraction of maximum in practice, due to 
> surface oxidation on one or both sides. Not sure where to go for that 
> information.
> 
> 
> This is where an expert opinion comes in handy. All in all, don't you think 
> it conceivable that this reactor runs at an order of magnitude less maximum 
> heat transfer, and the average could even be a fraction of that?
> 
> Jones
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:48 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze - Thermal power.pdf
> 
> In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:27:37 -0700:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >.plus, stainless conducts heat so poorly that a 5 KG reactor would
> 
> >surely melt before that rate of energy release could be sustained for
> 
> >15 minutes anyway - do you really doubt that?
> 
> Please see attached.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:A wiki for compiling Rossi's hints

[Charles Hope]

Ok that's the sort of possible issue I was referring to in terms of their 
policies being acceptable. 

I have a domain already and can have a mediawiki set up there probably this 
weekend, if others share your concerns. 

If you would prefer to do it, or can get it up faster, feel free. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Apr 18, 2011, at 17:20, "Angela Kemmler"  wrote:

> citation:
> 
> 
> BTW, is this not a good place to set one up at?
> http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_Rossi's_Cold_Fusion_Energy_Catalyzer_(E-Cat):_Frequently_Asked_Questions
> 
> 
> No. I remember very well that the company "Pure Energy Systems Network 
> Incorporated" (PESN) was involved in the Perendev-scandal. PESN-owner Allan 
> even was the owner of the swindle company Perendev internet domain 
> (perendev.com). He worked together with Maserati-owner Mike Brady who sold 
> not existing "self-running" electromagnetic generators he never delivered. 
> But he got money (1.4 million US Dollars) in advance from around 60 customers 
> and was sentenced here in Germany to five years and nine month in prison 
> (fraud). I remember the case very well. 
> 
> PESN has clearly commercial interests, and our discussions of the 
> Rossi-principle have nothing to do with business. Further, they (PESN) talk 
> on their webpages about so called "scalar waves", consipracy theories and 
> other pseudoscience:
> 
> ...We seek to bring knowledge of suppressed technologies into more 
> conventional arenas ...
> 
> Nobody "supresses" Rossi, even the italian television RAI3 talked about him, 
> there are three Wikipedia articles about the Ecat and the university of 
> Uppsala will perhaps test his device later this week.
> 
> ***
> 
> I installed sucessfully three times the Wikimedia software, that wikipedia 
> uses. It takes about one or two hours to install it and it is free. And a 
> domain costs here in Germany about 50 ct / month, in the USA perhaps even 
> less.  
> 
> So, it seems for me to be the better choice than a ads-encircled environment 
> like a PESN - page. There is enough ads in the internet ! 
> 
> Angela
> -- 
> NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
> Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
> 

Re: [Vo]:A wiki for compiling Rossi's hints

[Charles Hope]

If everyone wants to start keeping our list there, on a new page, that would be 
great. If there is no concern about their policies, I suggest it. 


 

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Apr 17, 2011, at 17:35, Esa Ruoho  wrote:

> BTW, is this not a good place to set one up at?
> http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_Rossi's_Cold_Fusion_Energy_Catalyzer_(E-Cat):_Frequently_Asked_Questions
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Esa Ruoho  wrote:
> Hear hear!
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Charles Hope  
> wrote:
> I'll look into setting up a wiki, which will be more convenient than passing 
> around a word document.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:A wiki for compiling Rossi's hints

[Charles Hope]

Flash is required?!

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Apr 17, 2011, at 17:36, ".:.gotjosh"  wrote:

> I have begun to author a webspace at ahead.com:
> http://ahead.com/begreencc/ecatrossi
> 
> it is a bit more visual and zoomable than a wiki... although not as
> searchable for the purely textual components...
> 
> please contact me if you would like to collaborate / contribute...
> 
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 23:21, Charles Hope
>  wrote:
>> I'll look into setting up a wiki, which will be more convenient than passing 
>> around a word document.
>> 
> 

[Vo]:A wiki for compiling Rossi's hints

[Charles Hope]

I'll look into setting up a wiki, which will be more convenient than passing 
around a word document. 


Sent from my iPhone. 

Re: [Vo]:About isotopic ratio on spent fuel (E-Cat)

[Charles Hope]

If the waste is identical to the fuel, that means no reaction involving it 
actually occurred, by definition. The material is at best merely a catalyst for 
a reaction with other fuel and waste. 





Sent from my iPhone. 

On Apr 15, 2011, at 22:52, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The scam status of the Rossi reactor has nothing to do with natural abundance 
> in Lenr reactions. It has been shown that all Lenr reactions produce waste 
> conformant to natural abundance. Like all Lenr reactions, the Rossi reactor 
> show natural abundance in it’s ash product. This should lend credence to the 
> claim that the Rossi reaction is real and that it is a valid Lenr Reaction.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Wait a minute. You want to change half the Standard Model of Physics in
> order to suggest that Rossi's device has some tiny chance of being
> theoretically possible in the oddball way that he thinks it is - when we're
> not even sure that it's not a total scam?
> 
> ... now that is true devotion to a cause 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder
> 
> Has anyone described the necessary chain of stellar events that would
> produce
> the present isotopic abundance of copper and is there proof that all those
> events actually happened?
> 
> My point is perhaps some elements/isotopes are formed naturally by a LENR
> process rather than by a succession  of stellar events. Therefore the reason
> why the isotopic abundance produced by the Rossi reactor is natural is
> because the Rossi reactor emulates how nature does it.
> 
> Harry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Vector form of centripetal acceleration in terms of v and v'

[Charles Hope]

Describe in what way? How was the Wikipedia page insufficient?


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Mar 27, 2011, at 20:52, David Jonsson  wrote:

> Can someone help me?
> 
> More specifically: I need to be able to describe the acceleration component 
> perpendicular to the direction of the flow.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force was close but did not give me 
> what I needed.
> 
> David
> 
> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:It's Much Worse Than I Thought

[Charles Hope]

So why is it bad to have spent fuel around active fuel rods?

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Mar 15, 2011, at 20:32, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> I was puzzled what was going on with F4.  Now I understand.  The spent
> fuel ponds not only protect spent fuel; but, they temporarily store
> active fuel rods while they are doing reactor maintenance inspections.
> The cores of 4, 5 and 6 have their fuel stored in the SPENT FUEL
> PONDS!
> 
> Quadruple plus not good.  This could really be far worse than
> Chernobyl.  There are likely now 3 reactors with active fuel rods
> stored in the spent fuel ponds along with the actual spent fuel.
> 
> This is far worse than what is happening in reactors 1, 2 and 3.
> Except for three which has MOX fuel.
> 
> Those 50 workers are likely DMW.
> 
> Check the price of potassium iodine on EBay right now.
> 
> T
> 

Re: [Vo]:Gravity as an Electrostatic Force by Professor Gupta

[Charles Hope]

One wonders how this accounts for the curvature of light under the influence of 
gravity. 

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Feb 27, 2011, at 15:08, Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greetings Votrex-L:
>  
> Possible: Gravity Modification or Gravitational  Shielding ?
>  
> There is an interesting paper by Professor R C Gupta : Gravity as a Secondary 
> Electrostatic Force:
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0505/0505194.pdf
>  
> Of special note: his acknowledgment of Dr Abdus Salam- a most interesting 
> connection.
>  
> Respectfully,
> Ron Kita   ..   Chiralex

Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia

[Charles Hope]

There is no mathematical definition of fringe. A topic is fringe if the 
majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. Wikipedia is an excellent tool 
for judging such mass subjectivity. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:29, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Let me add that we are talking about two different definitions of "fringe" 
> here. This is, in part, a dispute over semantics.
> 
> Cude is quite right about what he calls "fringe" and I agree that is a valid 
> use of the word. He is right that cold fusion fits that definition.
> 
> However, I think that in the context of a scientific discovery, when we 
> invoke concepts such as "fringe" or "marginal" or "proven" we should use the 
> more rigorous definitions. We should stick to mathematical rather than 
> popular culture definitions. When we talk about movies or politics, "fringe" 
> is defined by whatever the majority thinks. Wikipedia or the New York Times 
> are the arbiters. When we talk about calorimetry or tritium, opinions don't 
> count. The majority view itself may be "fringe," even though that seems 
> contradictory. The existing corpus of knowledge described in the textbooks 
> sets the standard. Quantitative measurements such as signal to noise decide 
> the issue. Not a headcount. Not who pulls political strings and gets to write 
> Op Ed columns in Washington Post (Robert Park), or which anonymous nitwit 
> named after a comic-book character prevails in the edit wars at Wikipedia.
> 
> Decades from now, all knowledge of cold fusion may be lost. After I and 
> others who know the facts die, the mythology alone may survive. The only 
> references in textbooks or the mass media may claim that cold fusion was 
> pathological science that was never replicated, etc. The Wikipedia/Sci. Am. 
> version of history may prevail, because winners write history books. However, 
> the Wikipedia version is incorrect. We can determine this by objective, 
> absolute, universal standards. Cold fusion exists. It always has. It always 
> will. Science does settle some issues beyond question.
> 
> It is rather quaint to assert absolute faith in the scientific method, but I 
> assert it! I may be mired in the 19th century, but I say there will never be 
> any way to disprove the heat beyond the limits of chemistry, tritium and 
> helium. Replicated experiments are the only standard of truth. Once you 
> achieve a certain level of replication, there is zero chance the results are 
> a mistake. Theory can always be overthrown. Experiments may be 
> re-interpreted. But in this case, the results are too simple and clear-cut to 
> be re-interpreted much. If the term "nuclear" means anything, and the 
> distinction between chemistry (changes in electron bonds) versus nuclear 
> (changes to the nucleus) mean anything, then cold fusion is a nuclear 
> reaction, by definition.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

[Charles Hope]

Isn't it more likely that the skeptics simply think the field is a joke, rather 
than that they're intimidated by the weight of the positive evidence?


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:52, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> At 01:30 AM 2/24/2011, you wrote:
>> Not being able to concede a point is a clear sign of someone
>> with an ulterior motive, or a pathological skeptic who simply can't accept 
>> things which challenge
>> their understanding of things.  Not surprising... He reminds me of some of 
>> the worst editors on
>> Wikipedia!
> 
> Yeah, one in particular who happens to be named Joshua. However, the style, 
> the tone and emphasis was different, so I think it's unlikely. Or the Joshua 
> I know has matured some.
> 
> None of these "skeptics" can manage to get up a published review? Is Shanahan 
> with his Letter responding to Krivit and Marwan in the Journal of 
> Environmental Monitoring the best they can manage?
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

[Charles Hope]

It seems like the field needs a new improved experiment showing helium/heat. 
Joshua, can you specify some parameters that would convince you?

Sent from my iPhone. 

> 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wrap-up

[Charles Hope]

What part of the country are you in?

Rossi will see any work at replication as an attempt to steal his pot of gold. 
I wouldn't bother asking for his blessing. 


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Feb 22, 2011, at 16:18, "Dennis"  wrote:

> >>>Like or not, unless another experimenter or group - more open to disclosure
> of the operational details, can approximate the Rossi results of extremely
> high COP at the kilowatt level, in the next few months leading up to the
> promised MW demonstration, then it is going to be a frustrating period for
> LENR researchers at many levels. 
> 
> I agree there needs to be an independent replication of the device  that 
> offers an "open demo".
> I fear that if Rossi fails to produce a 1MW system by Sept then the field 
> will be harmed.
> I am working on a path similar to Rossi (high temp gas loading) but with only 
> sporadic and inconsistent results.
> I do have the capability to work up to 1 or 2 kW with ease and higher with a 
> little modification.
>  
> I would be happy to receive help in an effort to replicate the Rossi system.
> I am talking actual physical support not talk or money. - material 
> preparation, machining,...
> Please let me know if anyone finds out exactly what Rossi is using and the 
> conditions.
> Let me know if anyone wishes to join forces.
>  
> I feel we are at a "tipping point".  Either Rossi is correct and things will 
> develop quickly, or he is
> wrong and there will be great damage to the field.  Someone somewhere needs 
> to do an independent
> replication or at least an attempt - hopefully with Rossi's blessings , but 
> it needs to be done.
> A replication would need to be completely "open" to serious investigators.
> I am welcome to the idea of an "open lab".  (within reason)
> My guess is that Rossi will to busy between now and Sept to do such a thing 
> himself.
>  
> Dennis Cravens
>  
>  

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

[Charles HOPE]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

>
> The massive rejection of cold fusion, which extended to rejection of a
> graduate student thesis solely because it involved cold fusion research, and
> once the news of that got around, cut off the normal supply of labor for
> replication work. Nobody gets a Nobel Prize for boring replication, running
> the same experiment that others have run, over and over, and nobody gets
> rich from it. As I investigated cold fusion, I saw this, and I'm working,
> myself, subject to my own rather severe limitations, to fix this, I'm
> designing and constructing a single, very specific experiment, that anyone
> could replicate with about $100 and a power supply. But this work is not
> designed to "prove cold fusion." All it will do, if the replication
> succeeds, is show a few neutrons per hour. (The design is, I hope,
> insensitive to normal charged particle radiation, and will effectively
> exclude background.)
>
>
Will that $100 include neutron detection?

-- 
Never did I see a second sun
Never did my skin touch a land of glass
Never did my rifle point but true
But in a land empty of enemies
Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want
A uranium angel
Crying “behold,”
This land that knew fire is yours
Taken from Corruption
To begin anew

Re: [Vo]:does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18

[Charles Hope]

Yes, the Devil is in the details. It pays to know just how much Devil is in 
there, and in old school 8 bit BASIC, there is much. 

Classical Mechanics gives results that are reversible. So if the model isn't, 
it's just a numerical flaw, and not a profound fact about physics.  



Sent from my iPhone. 

On Feb 19, 2011, at 1:57, Rich Murray  wrote:

> The only access to "the physics itself" we have with finite nervous
> systems is by using digital approximations with finite number strings,
> processed by algorithms of finite instruction size, so there are
> always round-off errors, which always diverge without limit, even if
> there are no close encounters.  So, it's a huge leap of faith to
> assume that the "present data" for a certain finite time interval
> actually allows prediction of a single future path or retrodiction of
> a single past path -- ie, classical mechanics probably can be proved
> to be incurably flawed, while allowing a certain amount of qualified
> estimation of probable paths forward and backward in time for the
> first 3 "orbits" or so...
> 
> I've read that actually the 3-body problem does have exact general
> solutions, which involve such long, very slowly converging sequences
> of terms, as to be practically unworkable in practice.  Probaby, it
> can be shown that the energy needed to run an ideal finite digital
> computer until a certain limit of accuracy is reached (testable by
> running the same problem in parallel with identical computers,
> watching to see at what point the results start to scatter) will grow
> so fast with time and accuracy as to exhaust the energy available in
> any universe that supports the computer...
> 
> Probably someone has already studied this...
> 
> It's not just that shit happens -- "happens" happens...
> 
> So, in reality, the "present" interval, however brief in time and tiny
> in space, necessarily in complex interaction with a possibly infinite
> external universe or hyperverse, must be inexplicable, "causeless",
> ie, totally "magical"...
> 
> This has in recent thousands of years been a common insight for
> advanced explorers of expanded awareness in many traditions.
> 
> Rich Murray "lookslikeallthoughtiswrong"@godmail.com
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Charles Hope
>  wrote:
>> I'm thinking your findings of irreversibility reflected the idiosyncrasies 
>> of floating point math represented in binary numbers, and not the physics 
>> itself.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone.
>> 
>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 22:17, Rich Murray  wrote:
>> 
>>> does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or
>>> more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18
>>> 
>>> Hello Steven V Johnson,
>>> 
>>> Can I have a free copy of the celestial mechanics software to run on
>>> my Vista 64 bit PC?
>>> 
>>> In fall, 1982, I wrote a 200-line program in Basic for the
>>> Timex-Sinclair $100 computer with 20KB RAM that would do up to 4
>>> bodies in 3D space or 5 in 2D space, about 1000 steps in an hour,
>>> saving every 10th position and velocity -- I could set it up to
>>> reverse the velocities after the orbits became chaotic after 3 1/2
>>> orbits from initial perfect symmetry as circles about the common
>>> center of gravity, finding that they always maintained chaos, never
>>> returning to the original setup -- doubling the number of steps while
>>> reducing the time interval by half never slowed the the evolution of
>>> chaos by 3 1/2 orbits -- so I doubted that there is any mathematical
>>> basis for the claim that classical mechanics predicts the past or
>>> future evolution of any system with over 2 bodies, leading to a
>>> conjecture that no successful algorithm exists, even without any close
>>> encounters.
>>> 
>>> Has this been noticed by others?
>>> 
>>> Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com  505-819-7388
>>> 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:30 PM,
>>> OrionWorks - "Steven V Johnson"  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Just a brief side-comment...
>>>> 
>>>> Some of this "lingo" is fascinating stuff to me. Having performed a
>>>> lot of theoretical computer simulation work on my own using good'ol
>>>> fashion Newtonian based Celestial Mechanics algorithms, where
>>>> typically I use "a = 1/r^2", I noticed orbital pattern behavior
>>>> transforms into something RADICALLY different, such as if I were to
>>>> change the classical algorithm to something like "a = 1/r^3". You can
>>>> also combine both of them like "a = 1/r^2 +/-  1/r^3" within the same
>>>> computer algorithm. That produces interesting side effects too. I'm
>>>> still trying to get a handle on it all.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>>> www.OrionWorks.com
>>>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18

[Charles Hope]

I'm thinking your findings of irreversibility reflected the idiosyncrasies of 
floating point math represented in binary numbers, and not the physics itself. 

Sent from my iPhone. 

On Feb 18, 2011, at 22:17, Rich Murray  wrote:

> does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or
> more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18
> 
> Hello Steven V Johnson,
> 
> Can I have a free copy of the celestial mechanics software to run on
> my Vista 64 bit PC?
> 
> In fall, 1982, I wrote a 200-line program in Basic for the
> Timex-Sinclair $100 computer with 20KB RAM that would do up to 4
> bodies in 3D space or 5 in 2D space, about 1000 steps in an hour,
> saving every 10th position and velocity -- I could set it up to
> reverse the velocities after the orbits became chaotic after 3 1/2
> orbits from initial perfect symmetry as circles about the common
> center of gravity, finding that they always maintained chaos, never
> returning to the original setup -- doubling the number of steps while
> reducing the time interval by half never slowed the the evolution of
> chaos by 3 1/2 orbits -- so I doubted that there is any mathematical
> basis for the claim that classical mechanics predicts the past or
> future evolution of any system with over 2 bodies, leading to a
> conjecture that no successful algorithm exists, even without any close
> encounters.
> 
> Has this been noticed by others?
> 
> Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com  505-819-7388
> 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
> 
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:30 PM,
> OrionWorks - "Steven V Johnson"  wrote:
> 
>> Just a brief side-comment...
>> 
>> Some of this "lingo" is fascinating stuff to me. Having performed a
>> lot of theoretical computer simulation work on my own using good'ol
>> fashion Newtonian based Celestial Mechanics algorithms, where
>> typically I use "a = 1/r^2", I noticed orbital pattern behavior
>> transforms into something RADICALLY different, such as if I were to
>> change the classical algorithm to something like "a = 1/r^3". You can
>> also combine both of them like "a = 1/r^2 +/-  1/r^3" within the same
>> computer algorithm. That produces interesting side effects too. I'm
>> still trying to get a handle on it all.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>> www.OrionWorks.com
>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> 

Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device

[Charles HOPE]

Also, the fact that both meters were pegged. That sounds more like an event,
and less like the momentary exposure of a shielded catalyst.



On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  From: albedo5
>
>
>
> If we had a spectrum, we would know what it was - or more to the point,
> what it wasn't.
>
> I really, REALLY want a spectrum.  Just one.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hmm … could it be simply a matter of deduction ?
>
>
>
> … connect the dots with Celani being specifically the only party being
> disallowed, his earlier Cincinnati group replication paper (which Rossi must
> have read), the range of common signatures that are possible for Celani to
> have identified with a portable NaI meter, even if allowed, and the fact
> that to produce power for $.01/kWhr, a natural emitter instead of an
> expensive isotope would need to be used…
>
>
>
> … how many possibilities are there to chose from ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Never did I see a second sun
Never did my skin touch a land of glass
Never did my rifle point but true
But in a land empty of enemies
Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want
A uranium angel
Crying “behold,”
This land that knew fire is yours
Taken from Corruption
To begin anew