Re: [Vo]:the essence of the 1MW, 1year test

" *Please try to be logically consistent and if you contradict the story of above, give proofs, not suppositions. OK?"The burden of proof is on Rossi. He's the one making a bold assertion, and must therefore prove it. To date, we have seen nothing that would prove this effect; though I think the L

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Actually, that is central to the legal questions. People on Planet Rossi have the peculiar notion that contracts are enforced based strictly on the words in them. If you can write a clever enough contract, you can force someone to pay you no matte

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Eric Walker writes: > ... It's now time > for you to pay up. Suppose for the sake of argument that the thing did > in fact flibbertygibbet. If you're being realistic, would you hand > over the money, given that you've had good reason in other contexts to > think that the thing doesn't work as adv

Re: [Vo]:The "customer" warehouse

That the client is no longer in business at the end of the 350 day test, is telling... Craig On 08/14/2016 09:11 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: Here a picture and information about the "customer" warehouse. It is only 6000 square feet and the height is 20 feet. Let's do a Fermi problem to se

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

On 08/11/2016 06:21 PM, Che wrote: But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an Objective Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some computer simulation, and that the people around you are real. You can't prove your axioms. That's why they're axioms. We tak

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

On 08/11/2016 05:47 PM, Che wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Craig Haynie mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote: Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe. Craig Having faith in things which can be proven to be true or not true -- i.e. Science

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

>>>The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering. - Jed Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe. Craig

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

On 07/03/2016 08:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote: But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of how Rossi could cheat was actually implemented. Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi cheats is Ro

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the licensing, (unless he has a known faulty product). The best IH can hope for is a null contract; not the rights to the IP. On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have unilateral

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

>>> Now over time, huge amounts of power are being produced that are beyond chemical means, so the cause must be nuclear. Mills must have been doing LENR experiments for the last 25 years but with the huge increase in SunCell power levels only LENR can explain what is happening inside the Sun

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

for another 20 years. To me, this really makes him look bad. If he's legitimate, he needs to push this new discovery aside, and get something out as soon as possible to maintain any kind of credibility. Craig On 06/17/2016 04:06 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: This is discouraging. What makes

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

holes -- but I am at a loss as to how he could have discovered another amazing energy source without using theory. Craig On 06/17/2016 03:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote: From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie mailto:cchayniep

Re: [Vo]:Back to the drawing board

Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to develop this process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it? Craig On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 09:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: In their motion to dismiss, I.H. mentioned multiple "reactors" that apparently all failed. I did not know there were multiple reactors. I know nothing about the others, but if you take their word for it, there were multiple failures, and no recen

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The test proved beyond doubt that the device does not work. I repeat: IT DOES NOT WORK. There is no excess heat. At no time in this test did the device show excess heat. You could watch it for a half hour, or you could collect 6 months of data an

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 10:01 AM, a.ashfield wrote: Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of ready money. This makes the most sense to me. I don't believe there's any way they would have continued a

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

There's nothing in the dispute which hinges on whether the device works, or not. That point may never be brought up. Craig On 06/03/2016 10:04 AM, a.ashfield wrote: IH has apparently sent Krivit a copy of their legal response to the court case. From a quick scan it doesn’t look like they h

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

>>>It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are living under the White House and get some hard data. Why would you want to? Craig On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote: > > The assumptio

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Learned something new today. What are "grays"? https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/65/96/926596fc73fadc74a03a639b60968884.jpg Craig

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

On 05/17/2016 10:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Now that you know Rossi explicitly refused to allow an inspection of the customer's equipment, you should realize he has zero credibility, and you should not believe a word he says. I've got to object to this statement; not that I believe, or

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

WHAT? Sorry, but this isn't what I quoted. Something is playing tricks. Nevermind... Craig On 05/16/2016 07:03 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: On 05/16/2016 06:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This building is 10,800 sq. ft. Not that it changes much, but according to Mats, the building was

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

On 05/16/2016 06:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This building is 10,800 sq. ft. Not that it changes much, but according to Mats, the building was 1,000 sq meters, which converts to 10763.9 sq feet. https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote: What confuses the analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot figure out their motive here??? It

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive Rises Above Pathoskeptic Dirge

Russ George wrote in his article @ http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/27/em-drive-rises-despite-pathoskeptic-dirge/ "The labs and Shawyer though have not been able to offer a ‘theory’ to explain the observed experimental evidence" As I understand it, this is not correct. Shawyer is w

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

an improved design. Actually the heater wire itself could be part of the heat transfer problem. *From:*Craig Haynie The optical imager is typically reading between an 18c and 20c difference. Craig Eric Walker wrote: Interesting. I hope a post-run calibration shows that when the fu

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

uncertainty. This will be critical to show before concluding anything. Eric On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Craig Haynie mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote: 60c on the latest... https://youtu.be/VLK19pllG9g?t=6278 On 04/16/2016 10:53 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

60c on the latest... https://youtu.be/VLK19pllG9g?t=6278 On 04/16/2016 10:53 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:01 AM, CB Sites > wrote: I have to say. This one is pretty fascinating. At 1000+C they had a delta T of 30C between a fueled and u

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

difference is between 3 and 4 standard deviations from the calibration, and 60c, (which occured for a few minutes), is over 4 standard deviations from the calibration. Is this the correct way to calculate error? Craig On 04/16/2016 09:15 AM, Craig Haynie wrote: Now 60c On 04/16/2016 07:19 AM

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

Now 60c On 04/16/2016 07:19 AM, Craig Haynie wrote: Now 50c. On 04/16/2016 03:01 AM, CB Sites wrote: I have to say. This one is pretty fascinating. At 1000+C they had a delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled cell that lasted for hours, until I gave up. On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2

Re: [Vo]:LIVE ON YOUTUBE: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: *GlowStick* 5.3 - Ready to power climb

Now 50c. On 04/16/2016 03:01 AM, CB Sites wrote: I have to say. This one is pretty fascinating. At 1000+C they had a delta T of 30C between a fueled and unfueled cell that lasted for hours, until I gave up. On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Che > wrote:

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Rossi: 1MW Plant Customer Bought Three More Plants

This is just rhetorical, but who on the IH team made the evaluation that the device did not perform? They didn't do any type of testing on their own; and unless Rossi is mis-reporting Penon's report, then it wasn't him. I doubt if it was Fulvio Fabiana. The only other person who may be qualifie

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Craig Haynie wrote: > > >> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this >>> prevents the application of common sense... >>> >> >> But I think we agree that

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Craig Haynie wrote: > > >> IH had already paid Rossi $11.5 million, and Rossi had already given IH >> his IP. >> > > I.H. says the device does not work. Therefore the IP is worthless. > My point is

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > > It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this > prevents the application of common sense... > But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that either side would have the option to opt-out i

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Some people have said that Penon is the sole ERV author listed in the > contract and therefore whatever he says must be accepted by both sides. > Last year I.H. said they would abide by whatever he said, so now they must > pay up. It does

Re: [Vo]:Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

This is a good point. IH can just as easily release the report. It's not just Rossi's reluctance. Craig On 04/13/2016 06:08 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Jed, If the ERV report supports IH, why have they not released it?

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

On 04/12/2016 10:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] and according to I.H. the 1-year test did not work. How would they know? Did Rossi let them do another independent test after they signed the agreement? The 'independent ERV test' was the definitive test. IH released their pessimistic statem

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

There is one thing I want to bring up, and why I give Rossi any chance at having something interesting... Mats Lewan mentioned this in his latest blog, and I had thought I lost track of this test from 2011. After the test, the e-cat went into heat-after-death for almost four hours. I remembe

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

On 04/12/2016 07:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Craig Haynie <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote: The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the agreement is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document that the device performed t

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

On 04/12/2016 03:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote: How dos a legal case handle an issue whereby everybody believes that LENR is impossible and a pseudoscience square with the main contention that Rossi has not revealed how LENR can be made to work? The predicate of such a case seems crazy to me. T

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

>>>He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare Rossi's evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better at calorimetry, so it is likely they are right. Does the license agreement look like

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

Rossi also wants his intellectual property back. Last year, IH filed a patent on Rossi's technology. Craig On 04/10/2016 09:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote: IH is now being discarded, If he is discarding I.H. why is he suing them for $89 million?

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

>>>And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing. You'd be calling for a lot more than that if you discovered that someone was cheating you! But asking for new testing is not part of the agreement which was signed. There are several reasons why IH would want to default on t

Re: [Vo]:Selective memories IH selected and agreed to the team to test the E-Cat

>>>First, there isnoproofthatIHagreedtoanyERV… I find this to be an odd thing to believe. The license agreement requires that both Rossi and IH agree to an ERV, and that the ERV will evaluate the device according to criteria which are laid out. If IH never agreed to the ERV, then why wait an

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

Reading the license agreement, it looks to me like IH doesn't get the option to bail if they don't agree with the result of the 350 day test. As I read it, it looks like their only say in completing this deal, occurred when they agreed with Rossi who would do the independent evaluation. Once th

[Vo]:Industrial Heat Patent?

If Industrial Heat says that the reactor doesn't work, then why did they apply for a patent with Rossi's technology? https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCT+Biblio https://www.google.com/patents/W

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

Rossi: " I have to comment the press release of IH, being a press release and not a forensic act. They made the Lugano reactor ( they also signed it ) they made many replications of which we have due record and witnesses, they made multiple patent applications ( without my authotization ) with

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

On 04/07/2016 09:50 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I am actually trying to defend Rossi, because this time is a big deal. According to the terms of the contract and IH, Rossi only got 1.5million, and nothing from the escrow account. So, for any decent research, well, decent in terms of using massive

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

On 04/07/2016 09:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Craig Haynie ØThey also paid Rossi $10 million dollars, after validating that the device was working… Not exactly. The logical error is cause and effect. Yes, they paid the installment, but elsewhere they clearly state that "Indus

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

On 04/07/2016 08:19 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: But now that IH said they could not get Rossi to prove anything, Rossi shouldn't have got anything. And note that the claim that the experiment prove anything came from Rossi's side. So, we are concluding that he got 10 million based on what "Rossi

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

On 04/07/2016 08:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Isnt the 10 million on an escrow account? As far as I understood, IH even bought a unit before completing the reactor. The $10 million was on escrow at the beginning, until IH validated that the machine was working, and producing at least 6 COP. Th

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

You're right. I have made two mistakes in two days. Something's wrong. I'm just not concentrating on what I'm writing. :) Craig On 04/07/2016 07:54 PM, Robert Dorr wrote: It wasn't a month long test, it was a 24 hour test performed in Ferrara Italy. I keep seeing that supposedly I.H. was t

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

They also paid Rossi $10 million dollars after validating that the device was working for a month. Craig On 04/07/2016 06:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without succes

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

I agree; the $10 million was paid. Sorry for the confusion. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Craig Haynie > wrote: > >> See section 3.2(b). The $10,000,000 is held in escrow. >> >> >> http://

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

See section 3.2(b). The $10,000,000 is held in escrow. http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > "I think the fight is over the $10 million in escrow, which loo

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

ough. Craig On 04/06/2016 11:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie Actually, this whole mystery could be the result of a failure by IH to raise the expected $89 million to finalize the deal. Maybe, but if Rossi really has the goods ... given that useless con

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer

"‘The attached photo has been made in our factory in Miami, Florida, and is related to the plant “E-Cat the New Fire” manufactured by Leonardo Corporation to supply thermal energy’" From 2015: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/05/new-image-of-the-e-cat-plant-on-trademark-application/ Craig O

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

Actually, this whole mystery could be the result of a failure by IH to raise the expected $89 million to finalize the deal. This might explain why they took this to the end of the trial. Craig

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

Here's something I found interesting in the lawsuit. During the test, IH had hired two people to monitor the test, and they were kept well informed of its progress. I wonder if they signed the document, as well? "67. During the Guaranteed Performance Test period, IH and/or IPH engaged and paid

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

And the winner is Jone Beene!! "I have recently re-read the Pinon report, which is an absolute mockery of the scientific system, and if Pinon turns out to be the ERV, then we are in the early stages of a gigantic lawsuit. " Craig On 03/31/2016 08:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I have recent

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat THrust....EmDrive

This doesn't make any sense. If there was some kind of thrust being developed in the ecat, along the lines of the emdrive, then no one would ever know. If no one tries to measure it, they'll never see it, or suspect it. Craig On 04/04/2016 10:00 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, I won

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

eplications, from different sources; or we'll have people who've purchased these machines, come out in unison that they're all amazed at how much money they're saving. Neither Rossi, nor Mills, seem to be interested in the former. Craig On 03/31/2016 07:35 PM, Jed Roth

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

To be a little more clear, I don't think Rossi is going to provide any proof for anyone, other than his investors -- assuming he does indeed have something. This report is probably an engineering report. What he needs to know before selling these expensive machines, is the knowledge that they a

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

Rossi has released a lot more than Mills, and they both seem to be on similar paths. Like Rossi, Mills is planning to start selling next year. If Rossi starts selling, that will be all the proof he needs. Craig

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

This won't be resolved completely until Rossi sells a few of these things. Craig On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Stephen Cooke wrote: > Thanks for the thought provoking post… I agree. > > Group think and consensus can be more powerful, more widespread and more > damaging than any planned or

Re: [Vo]:The Orbo Works as Claimed?

This is an interesting video. He takes a load off of the Orbo, and watches the voltage increase. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbKcgyCVzI#t=14.024172 Craig On 03/28/2016 10:33 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving

[Vo]:The Orbo Works as Claimed?

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/ecw-orbo-testing-week-8-orbo-cell-now-behaving-according-to-steorns-claims/ Craig

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ecat Commercialization ..a Nice Website

Rossi is the man in the lead? Unless Mills is lying, he is miles ahead of Rossi. If this is the case, then all Mills has to do is walk up and claim his Nobel prize. Craig On 03/25/2016 09:40 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Nice presentation..I almost missed it: http://newenergytreasure.com/2016/03/18/ra

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

"Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy. " I am aware that this is a well-vetted, common equation; but if used in this case, then an object accelerating at 1 m/s^2 for 10 seconds, and travelling at 200 m/s, with respect to a common point, would require approximately twice

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

This doesn't make any sense: "For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the engine." Since we're not talking about relativistic speeds, then the idea that a device will consume more energy, over a giv

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

One advantage the EMDrive has over LENR, is that it's fairly replicable. The amateurs can do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbf7735o3hQ Craig

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for a negative report on Rossi's one year test? Craig On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 11:32 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: > [Marianne Macy asked me to post this] > > > The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for > In

Re: [Vo]:a number (value) worth a million words for LENR

The number is a little too perfect, don't you think? 8,400,000 kwh / 350 days / 24 hours/day = exactly 1.000 mw of power output. Craig On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 19:57 +0200, Peter Gluck wrote: > > > do not take this literally > > > I bet we will have more info tomorrow or even later today > >

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 06:43 -0800, Jones Beene wrote: > What am I missing? > Gamma Rays! Craig

Re: [Vo]:Something big is happening

From: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project QuantumHeat.org [mailto:m.fleischmann.memor...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:13 PM To: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project QuantumHeat.org Subject: We. did. it... together. Dear Donor, During ICCF-17 in South Korea, shortly following the

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

On Sun, 2016-02-14 at 20:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I am glad to see people paying attention to this issue. I hope it is > not politicized. Many people feel that that work is a moral issue; > that able-bodied people who do not work should not be given > sustenance. This was a reasonable view

Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power/ Brilliant Light...Demo today

On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 09:30 -0800, Jones Beene wrote: > Mills does not want to address the problem of having no verifiable > data to share. > As we've seen from previous attempts, there is no such thing as verifiable data at a public demonstration. Everything will be questioned, and nothing can

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

"Perhaps the Steorn device also has a lithium battery to account for its higher cost." Yes, they said it has a lithium battery in their presentation. Supposedly, the battery recharges continuously. Craig On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Teslaalset wrote: > Bob, this is not targeted at end-co

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

"Energy is roughly 10Wh" They're saying it will self-recharge indefinitely. Craig On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Teslaalset wrote: > Price is 1200 Euro > Power generation is 0.4W > Energy is roughly 10Wh > Weight is 300 grams, most of it is due to the aluminum casing. > Even in a Feraday ca

Re: [Vo]: Translation of Russian paper on Ni-H experiment

On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 17:26 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Note that this work was done in the 1990s, so it was not affected by > Rossi. The paper references work in the 90s, but the paper and the latest work, is current. Craig > >

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

What am I missing here? Is hydrogen not really necessary for this reaction? Then why was it considered so important? Craig On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: > Add some BORAX to the water, I hear that's even better. > > -Original Message- > From: mix...@bigpon

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote: > Hi all > > In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world. > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us > > There are only two types of economies that ha

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 09:48 -0500, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > The appeal for gold is based on an illusion that gold has some kind of > mystical value of its own, as if the it was ordained by God. Opinions and desires can't be universalized, but I believe that most of the people w

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote: > deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying > work, to look less indepbted. No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be

Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline

Electric cars in the 90s were only built as a result of the California mandate. There was no demand for them back then. Now, with improved technology, and much higher gas prices, a lot of people are starting to like the idea and the market is becoming viable. Craig

Re: [Vo]:Re: CIHT POWER SYSTEM (US20150171455A1, Publication Date: 06/18/2015, File Date: 05/21/2013, Mills)

On Thu, 2015-06-18 at 12:15 -0700, Bob Cook wrote: > My bet is on Industrial Heat. I think they have a more urgent > attachment of their objective of producing something useful for > society—more philanthropic IMHO. Unless Mills is committing fraud, then he's miles ahead of everyone else. He has

Re: [Vo]:a turning point in the history of Parkhomov replications

The MFMP data is really compelling. As the temperature rises; as the internal pressure drops, the difference between the fueled cell and the control gets wider. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/15ODbN9Oq6Pjyp9A61hdX0-fBJIXBBKMk7Ei06PzTc-Q/htmlview?sle=true#gid=1291075296 Craig On Sat,

Re: [Vo]:OT fountain of youth?

On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 13:01 -0500, David L. Babcock wrote: > The way to the stars better be an under-$1000 Portal in every village. > Spaceships are too frigin expensive to move any but a tiny fraction of > our billions. Expensive? That thinking is so... 20th century. :) Cheap energy makes eve

Re: [Vo]:OT fountain of youth?

On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 07:07 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: > God forbid this should work. The last thing we need is a bunch of old > people cluttering up society. [...] You know, if we could find a way to the stars, then suddenly, there's plenty of room for anyone who has ever lived, and anyone who wa

Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

"Why concentrate upon a very special case instead of the more general applications for these drives? Hovering is useful, but it is not going to enable one to travel among the stars." Hovering gives us flying cars. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:50 AM, John Berry wrote: > Yes, the reaction mass is

Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

Thanks Robin. You're right. He does say that this force of 1 tonne per kilowatt is for 'static thrust'. "I found an answer from the website. He is referring specifically to a 'static thrust', not used to do work. "The static thrust/power ratio is calculated assuming a superconducting EmDrive with

Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

energy in an object travelling at 9.8 m/s = 1/2 * m * > v2. > >> So > >> > for a car of 1000 kg, the energy = 1000 / 2 * 9.82 = 48,020 joules > = 48 > >> > kilowatts to do this in one second. > >> > - > >> > > >> > This p

Re: [Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

uch energy it takes to raise something > > to height = E = m * g (gravitational constant) * h = 1000 * 9.8 * 9.8 = > > 96,040 watts-seconds = 96 kilowatts to do this in one second. So it > agrees > > with the previous result. > > > >So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass > >of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this > >would be appreciated. > > > >Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH) > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >

[Vo]:Nextgen EM Drive's Potential seems way above the Theoretical Limit

previous result. So, I don't understand how any device could hover an object with the mass of a tonne for less than a theoretical 48 kilowatts. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Craig Haynie ( Manchester, NH)

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

> > My opinion is that this was the best documented, reported, and > instrumented Parkhomov replication experiment to date. There are sure > to be better experiments to come, but lets give Alan his due for > putting together a good experiment. > Hear, Hear! My comments sounded more negative th

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later

> > MFMP didn't show COP>1, with the dog bone test, last night It was a bit more disappointing than that. They didn't seem to have a clear understanding of the protocol. They leveled the temperature at 855 C, initially; then decided it should be leveled at 875 C. Then they decided to raise it

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov's device restarts and WORKS NOW!

think you have the papers published by Alexander till now, isn't it? > What is especially interesting you? > > Greetings, > Peter > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Craig Haynie > wrote: > >> Did Parkhomov publish his experimental protocol? If so, how can I get

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov's device restarts and WORKS NOW!

Did Parkhomov publish his experimental protocol? If so, how can I get a hold of it? Craig On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear Friends, > > The good news have arrived when I was sleeping, however they are really > good and bring the promise of even better news. > I publis

Re: [Vo]:Re: Dog Bone Project

Pressure inside the dog bone is calculated to have been near 19,861 psi at the time of failure. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWYbi6tBHcjZ4PyQ0BaWn-G1NkdQdkirb-_Qx2HypKs/edit Craig

Re: [Vo]:Dog Bone Project

Short segment showing the explosion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A&feature=youtu.be Craig

  1   2   3   4   >