[Vo]:Article about cold fusion, part 3

Here is the third part of the series by Mitteldorf: Prospective Energy Sources, Part 3: Cold Fusion’s Threat and Promise https://whowhatwhy.org/science/prospective-energy-sources-part-3-cold-fusions-threat-and-promise/ Here is another version of the article, with some controversial statements

[Vo]:Article about cold fusion

Here is an article by someone who is sympathetic toward cold fusion. Prospective Energy Sources, Part 2: Cold Fusion’s Ice-Cold Reception https://whowhatwhy.org/science/prospective-energy-sources-part-2-cold-fusions-ice-cold-reception/ The author has a theoretical physics degree, and knew

[Vo]:Sources of cold fusion database at LENR-CANR.org

Marianne asked me where all those references at LENR-CANR.org came from, and whether the papers are still available. I started with two databases. One was compiled by Ed Storms and the other by Dieter Britz. I combined them and I removed duplicates. Over time, I added many new papers. I explained

RE: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

anuary 12, 2020 9:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion Hi, Well Miley himself was fully invested in the Fusor device (and sold his neutron generating company to Daimler) AFAIK he never mentioned that LENR was involved in tha

RE: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

Hi, Well Miley himself was fully invested in the Fusor device (and sold his neutron generating company to Daimler) AFAIK he never mentioned that LENR was involved in that technology and if anyone should know – it is him. The W-L theory predicts extremely low momentum neutrons - which somehow

Re: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

Here's a voice from the past... Did anyone ever consider using a Farnsworth Fusor as a source of low energy neutrons to catalyse the putative Widom-Larsen pathway to LENR? Nick Palmer On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 15:20, Jed Rothwell wrote: > QUOTE: > > Final FY20 Appropriations: National Science

RE: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

:ju...@datamart.ch> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 3:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion First think then understand then design experiments! The UDH disproportion reaction (Kaon,Pion,Muon cascade) of Holmlid can be induced

Re: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

First think then understand then design experiments! The UDH disproportion reaction (Kaon,Pion,Muon cascade) of Holmlid can be induced by switching on the lab light. It's as I said: Only rotten minds that use a rotten standard model can believe that fusion is energy dependent.  It's the

RE: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

skimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion This inclusion in the funding bill is actually rather amazing IMO - at least the positive sentiment which is expressed juxtaposed to the prevailing negative sentiment of the past. Maybe "nothing will come of it" but I wouldn't

Re: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

Here is a question for you Jürg. You mention the tabletop chirped laser, which is becoming commonplace in labs. Holmlid does not use a particularly robust  or chirped laser so this looks like a grand way to proceed to get better results. Have you modeled the hydrogen-boron reaction which

Re: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

The laser setup at Livermore is a dead dinosaur. *Today tabletop* chirp pulsed lasers can get the 1000 fold energy density of LL ignition factory with a fraction of the input energy. The EU will soon be ready with such an laser. But this will not change the result of the alleged confinement

Re: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

This inclusion in the funding bill is actually rather amazing IMO - at least the positive sentiment which is expressed juxtaposed to the prevailing negative sentiment of the past. Maybe "nothing will come of it" but I wouldn't be so skeptical. Many observers have been looking for that

[Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

QUOTE: Final FY20 Appropriations: National Science Foundation *Low-energy nuclear reactions.* The House report encourages NSF to “evaluate the various theories, experiments, and scientific literature surrounding the field of LENR,” which is most associated with the pursuit of cold fusion

[Vo]:Free, "Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity"

The Kindle version of "Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity" will be on a free promotion starting April 1 to April 3.  The Kindle reader may be installed on any tabblet. https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Fusion-Antigravity-Znidarsic-Science-ebook/dp/B00AD6ARD6/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8==

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion may fade by 2024

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:20:03 + (UTC): Hi Jones, [snip] >Do you see where this is going? If not, let me a little more direct: does a >"burning bush" come to mind ?  or crop circles? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion may fade by 2024

:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion may fade by 2024 Terry Blanton wrote: > Either there are Watchers or we're damned lucky bugs.  Ah... the Watchers. Here is a new twist. The concept of a "Watcher" as a base level intergalactic probe incorp

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion may fade by 2024

Terry Blanton wrote: > Either there are Watchers or we're damned lucky bugs.   Ah... the Watchers. Here is a new twist. The concept of a "Watcher" as a base level intergalactic probe incorporating advance AI is fascinating. After all, there is little doubt that the expected cost of

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion may fade by 2024

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 11:40 AM Jones Beene wrote: > Maybe that is coincidental. > Or maybe William Bramley is right in *The Gods of Eden*. ("Blanton, will you never shut up about that book and *The 12th Planet*?") We burned up our fossil fuel to create a blanket of CO2 and methane from

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion may fade by 2024

Somewhat ironic that interest in LENR has an ~11 year period... which is also seen in the sunspot cycle... ... which really isn't exactly 11 years, but... somehow it manages to be a very good fit over time. One 'big picture' irony lies in the fact that solar energy itself has become

[Vo]:Interest in cold fusion may fade by 2024

See Fig. 1, Downloads per month, here: https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1213 The trend line in this graph so far is remarkably stable and symmetrical. It peaked after 11 years in 2013. If present trends continue, it will fall close to zero around 2024. The bottom graph, Google Trends

[Vo]:we need cold fusion now

https://www.aol.com/article/weather/2018/08/12/searing-heat-could-make-countries-in-north-africa-and-along-the-persian-gulf-unlivable/23500875/ Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Recipes for cold fusion

I wrote: Storms, E., *How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect*. Fusion Technol., > 1996. *29*: p. 261. > Correct link: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf

[Vo]:Recipes for cold fusion

During ICCF-21, Mike McKubre commented that what we need are more recipes for cold fusion experiments. I know of two recipes: Cravens, D. *Factors Affecting Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF Cells*. in *Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion*. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power

[Vo]:Article about cold fusion in The Pioneer

See: http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/cold-fusion-to-power-households.html The author says a follow up article is coming soon. (The Pioneer is an English language newspaper in India.)

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

David L. Babcock wrote: Yes. Small but convincing. > What does the graph convince you of? - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

Yes. Small but convincing. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:48 PM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning Did the graph show up? Can people here see it? This discussion group software is a little out of date. A little

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

I see the graph, and time fleeing since LENR papers were stored on FTP archives. 2018-02-08 23:48 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell : > Did the graph show up? Can people here see it? > > > This discussion group software is a little out of date. A little, as in . > . . 20 years? > > -

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

I was able to see the graph, Jed. On 9 February 2018 at 00:48, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Did the graph show up? Can people here see it? > > > This discussion group software is a little out of date. A little, as in . > . . 20 years? > > - Jed > > --

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

Did the graph show up? Can people here see it? This discussion group software is a little out of date. A little, as in . . . 20 years? - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

Alain Sepeda wrote: by the way, any news on you video pitch? popular? > 87,636 lifetime views. Let's see if I can attach the graph. [image: Inline image 1]

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

8> by the way, any news on you video pitch? popular? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjvL4zNLOGw=youtu.be 2018-02-08 23:08 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell : > The Google Trend for "cold fusion Rossi" has plunged. Thank goodness. See: > >

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

The Google Trend for "cold fusion Rossi" has plunged. Thank goodness. See: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=cold%20fusion%20rossi=all

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

sorry jed, I'm just surprised by good moves. Maybe the trafic is low because the peanut gallery is tired (like me), but white and blue collar are moving. Some even told me to stop being negative 8) Future will say if this is fruitful. 2018-02-08 21:38 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

Now I see why nobody ever responds to my emails. They're busy deleting them with voice commands! On 8 February 2018 at 23:00, Frank Acland wrote: > sorry, please ignore my previous message, just a mistake. > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Frank Acland

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

sorry, please ignore my previous message, just a mistake. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Frank Acland wrote: > delete > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Esa Ruoho wrote: >> Jed it'd be really interesting to have you interviewed for the Cold Fusion >>

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

delete On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Esa Ruoho wrote: > Jed it'd be really interesting to have you interviewed for the Cold Fusion > Now! podcast series. > > > On 8 February 2018 at 22:38, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> Alain Sepeda

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

Jed it'd be really interesting to have you interviewed for the Cold Fusion Now! podcast series. On 8 February 2018 at 22:38, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Jed, Don't despair ;-) >> > > I am not the despairing type. > > I strongly

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

Alain Sepeda wrote: Jed, Don't despair ;-) > I am not the despairing type. I strongly believe in facing facts, even distressing ones. *Especially* distressing one. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

Jed, Don't despair ;-) Don't despair like I did still few days ago. Hope is from a so improbable place, a so natural place. LENR is a God's joke. 2018-02-08 20:38 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell : > See LENR-CANR.org Total Downloads and the Google Trends graph over time > from

[Vo]:Interest in cold fusion is waning

See LENR-CANR.org Total Downloads and the Google Trends graph over time from 2004 to the present: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1213

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Che makes a cogent point. The year long test was far more that an attempt to extract money from IH, It was an attempt to verify a commercial product and the attempt failed at least in Rossi's estimation. This attempt at commercial applicability was why the test was so convoluted, inappropriate to

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > The whole discussion after the TRAIL is useless. Accusations between > vorts, discussions trying to determine how Rossi is a fraud or not - all of > counter productive. > Rossi has a small window to show that he has

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

The whole discussion after the TRAIL is useless. Accusations between vorts, discussions trying to determine how Rossi is a fraud or not - all of counter productive. Rossi has a small window to show that he has something. His ethics need no analysis. Rossi as a person is of little interest if the

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > >> Clueless, DEAD wrong, AND delusional. All in one email post! >> > > That is not what I would call a cogent response, but I appreciate the > brevity of it. You needn't say

RE: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

ink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Brian Ahern<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 5:44 AM To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned This note from Axil reminds me of my friends postings when he was in the man

Re: Fw: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > The classic case is the Aztecs. They were taken out over a few short months in a military engagement from a vastly outnumbered force, not by disease. There are a lot of factors involved in any historical

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

imo.com>> Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned I wrote: If I succeed at promoting cold fusion and it becomes generally used, I shall play an important role in changing the world more than Marxism and Capitalism combined. That sounds like hyperbo

Re: Fw: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

gunpowder. > > > -- > *From:* Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, July 7, 2017 7:04 PM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned > > One of the cool things about cold fusion in a 500

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

pitalism had. If the >> human race survives for millions of years -- as I hope it will -- >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 6:37 pm >&

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

t will -- > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 6:37 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned > > I wrote: > > > If I succeed a

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > One of the cool things about cold fusion in a 500 year outlook is that it > makes for a very ineffective weapon. Even fire is a more effective weapon. > Oooh... I don't know about that... You know why potatoes

Re: Fw: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Wasn't it small pox and other viral infections? And yes, it was a non intended conquering, the same happened in pacific islands, or any place that did not have contacts with Europe since the ice age. Though, it was only a matter of time, just like anywhere else in the world. If you go to places

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

it will have a larger impact than capitalism had. If the human race survives for millions of years -- as I hope it will -- -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interest in

Fw: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

The Spanish had cholera. It was 100 times as effective as gunpowder. From: Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 7:04 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned One of the cool things about cold fusion in

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

You are trolling. Or you lack objectivity. If you cannot explain something that simple to someone very educated, you are pretty worthless to explain anything to a working person. 2017-07-07 19:59 GMT-03:00 Che : > > Clueless, DEAD wrong, AND delusional. All in one

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Che wrote: > Clueless, DEAD wrong, AND delusional. All in one email post! > That is not what I would call a cogent response, but I appreciate the brevity of it. You needn't say more, since your responses are canned and never deviate from party doctrine. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Clueless, DEAD wrong, AND delusional. All in one email post! Great work, Jed. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> If I succeed at promoting cold fusion and it becomes generally used, I >> shall play an important role in changing the

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

One of the cool things about cold fusion in a 500 year outlook is that it makes for a very ineffective weapon. Even fire is a more effective weapon. You know why potatoes became a crop of choice in Europe? Because when a king's army sieged your castle and burned your crops, there were still

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

I wrote: > If I succeed at promoting cold fusion and it becomes generally used, I > shall play an important role in changing the world more than Marxism and > Capitalism combined. > That sounds like hyperbole, but I mean it. I think that Marxism and capitalism are both on their way out. As we

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

I posted the first ngram search incorrectly. Ngram is case sensitive unless you check the box on the right. Plus, I think I should not have put "cold fusion" in quotes. I am not sure how the quote sign works in ngram. Here is a new search comparing LENR (all caps) to "cold fusion" (no quotes):

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Kevin O'Malley wrote: There was a software package called "cold fusion" which can obscure the > results as well as the interest. > It turns out this is not an issue with ngram. "ColdFusion" the programming language is one word with peculiar capitalization, and ngram is

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

First time I was called anti communist. LOL. I've seen revisionist, tankie and all the crap. 2017-07-07 7:20 GMT-03:00 Che : > > > > People here do not want to see me get into a tiresome, useless argument > with a know-nothing anti-communist puhtz like you. > Simple.

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > You don't know how to answer that, because that is the plain truth. > > 2017-07-06 23:49 GMT-03:00 Che : > >> >> Blah, blah, blah... not worth replying to. >> WTF am I ignoring. You're just

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

You don't know how to answer that, because that is the plain truth. 2017-07-06 23:49 GMT-03:00 Che : > > Blah, blah, blah... not worth replying to. > WTF am I ignoring. You're just trying to score some dumb brownie points. > > >

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

I am sorry to report that there has been a considerable decline in interest in cold fusion. Yea! I can see this with my books and apps. "Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity" was my best seller. Now the best seller is "Electronics Project". Sorry to say its time to move on and only

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > There was a software package called "cold fusion" which can obscure the > results as well as the interest. LENR needs to repackage their name. > Maybe something like Anomalous Heating Event. > LENR: 'Legitimate

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Che Trotsky, you are ignoring material conditions, we do not know how Cold > Fusion works, and historical conditions, that is, we are in capitalism and > cold fusion is not trusted. Even in whatever form of socialism

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

There was a software package called "cold fusion" which can obscure the results as well as the interest. LENR needs to repackage their name. Maybe something like Anomalous Heating Event.

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

"we do not know how Cold Fusion works, and historical conditions, that is, we are in capitalism and cold fusion is not trusted" Cold fusion is a misnomer. The LENR reaction is the catalyzed decay of the nucleon produced by intense nanomagnetism similar in nature to the instantan based Fractional

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Che Trotsky, you are ignoring material conditions, we do not know how Cold Fusion works, and historical conditions, that is, we are in capitalism and cold fusion is not trusted. Even in whatever form of socialism you subscribe, you'd have to either convince many other workers to see the importance

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > >> Jesus Christ, you bourgeois types... the POINT is to CHANGE the World: a >> concept you people ARE most absolutely unfamiliar with. >> > > I have probably done more to

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Che wrote: > Jesus Christ, you bourgeois types... the POINT is to CHANGE the World: a > concept you people ARE most absolutely unfamiliar with. > I have probably done more to change the world with computers than you have. Not always in good ways, but I had an

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Che wrote: > > Scientific research should not be a popularity contest, right? >> > > Perhaps it should not be, but alas, it is. We have to deal with the real > world as it is, not as we

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Che wrote: Scientific research should not be a popularity contest, right? > Perhaps it should not be, but alas, it is. We have to deal with the real world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. That concept seems somewhat alien to you. *Especially* considering

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I am sorry to report that there has been a considerable decline in > interest in cold fusion. The number of Google alerts about the subject is > far lower than it used to be. The number of people reading papers at >

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

Daniel Rocha wrote: > It's cold fusion for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_ColdFusion . > I think the Ngram search will not find "ColdFusion," because it is one word. My Google Alerts parameter avoids it: cold fusion -coldfusion -"web hosting"

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

It's cold fusion for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_ColdFusion .

[Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

I am sorry to report that there has been a considerable decline in interest in cold fusion. The number of Google alerts about the subject is far lower than it used to be. The number of people reading papers at LENR-CANR.org is down. The numbers usually goes down in summer when students take a

[Vo]:Re: Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity will be free July 4th

Energy , cold Fusion, and Antigravity I can't give it away. There is no interest on anyone's part. Parrot Teacher is again #2 in sales. https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/mobile-apps/9408731011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_mas_1_3_last That is telling. Frank Znidarsic -Original

[Vo]:Re: Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity will be free July 4th

Free Book Promotion July 3, 2017 July 5, 2017 Scheduled -Original Message- From: Frank Znidarsic To: vortex-l Sent: Tue, Jun 27, 2017 9:29 am Subject: Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity will be free July 4th Energy, Cold Fusion, and

[Vo]:Polemic on cold fusion at quora.com

Alain Coetmeur suggested I respond to a question at quara.com. I wrote a full-on polemic. I haven't done that in a while. It was enjoyable. Pretty funny in places, if I do say so myself. See:

[Vo]:Re: Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

Robin That is correct Peter -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Palladium cold fusion as an energy source In reply to <pjvannoor...@caiway.nl>'s message of Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21

Re: [Vo]:Re: Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

In reply to 's message of Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:24:29 +0100: Hi, [snip] >Hello >The vapourpressure of water at 100 Celcius is 76 cmHg. >At 103 Celcius the vapour pressure is 84.51 cm Hg = 1,112 atm Note that in the Netherlands a "," is used as the decimal point. Regards,

[Vo]:Re: Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

Hello The vapourpressure of water at 100 Celcius is 76 cmHg. At 103 Celcius the vapour pressure is 84.51 cm Hg = 1,112 atm Peter v Noorden From: Peter Gluck Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:59 PM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source Basta, signore

[Vo]:Is this Cold Fusion? (crazy conjecture)

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/10/were-now-up-to-five-reports-of-safe-galaxy-note-7s-exploding-worldwide/ - A "safe" Note 7 that caught fire on a parked Southwest Flight, triggering an

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

As you have not heard from the Chinese that is proof positive of fraud. Really? AA On 9/5/2016 1:13 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: This whole discussion is freakin' ridiculous. If AR really had a reactor with a COP of 6.0, the Chinese would already be scrambling to build thousands of such

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

This whole discussion is freakin' ridiculous. If AR really had a reactor with a COP of 6.0, the Chinese would already be scrambling to build thousands of such reactors. Rossi is clearly a fraud.

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

On 09/03/2016 01:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote: And more important, how could the dirt /circulate?/ It wouldn't make it past the boil/vaporize/recondense stage. If there really was steam, the dirt could be coming

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > And more important, how could the dirt *circulate?* It wouldn't make it > past the boil/vaporize/recondense stage. > If there really was steam, the dirt could be coming from the condenser. > As if we needed more proof -- but the brown water

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Hey, speaking of dirty water, there was a really worthwhile observation on that thread: "Could be anything. Rust, dirt, bacteria. If Rossi wouldn't just let it circulate with a mild 20 kW heating once per circle, *it'd all clog up in whatever part is supposed to turn that filth into steam.*"

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Jed, You said the pipe was DN40. There is no way one would put a DN80 flowmeter on a pipe that small. I assume it was mounted on a DM80 pipe and that was why it was as large as it was. I depended on memory because I didn't want to take the time to look it up. Without the piping drawing it

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Jed, I wanted specifically information about people to whom (as you say) IH has complained in 2015 about the 1MW plant. What has Rossi do with this. The strange thing is that NOBODY has confirmed what you say, e.g. on forums where LENRists write. You use the oppressors logic "I say you must

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

As the water is continuously distilled I see no reason why it should be "seriously dirty." AA On 9/2/2016 11:56 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote: And obvious point ... if the water in the

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

a.ashfield wrote: >From memory the flowmeter was DN80, but that was just hearsay. > Why do you depend on memory? It is right there in Exhibit 5. The flowmeter was an Apator PoWoGaz, model number MWN130-80-NC. That is not "hearsay." It is a statement filed with the court

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And obvious point ... if the water in the reservoir was seriously > dirty, as you mentioned in an earlier note, then it wasn't pure water, > which in turn implies it very probably had a higher boiling point than

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

From memory the flowmeter was DN80, but that was just hearsay. A dimensioned drwg of the pipework is what's required. What no comment on Rossi's reply to IH's motion to dismiss? ( Re: [Vo]: Rossi's answer to IH) AA On 9/2/2016 8:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

a.ashfield wrote: If the steam is condensed it would form a vacuum. DN40 sounds small to > me. Is that another Murray quote? > Yes, I said it was from Murray. Your knee jerk rejection of this is irrational. You can easily confirm the size of the pipe by looking up the

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Peter Gluck wrote: > You have not answered some of my questions but can do it now, e.g. to whom > except you have complained IH re the plant in 2015? you can answer in > private. > I will tell you nothing that has not been revealed by Rossi or by I.H. Ask as many times

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

On 09/02/2016 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Also, because an earlier version of the report supposedly had higher numbers, which were replaced with 0.0 bar in the later version. Thanks for that nugget. It made the time spent following this whole thread worthwhile. :-) (When people do

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

If the steam is condensed it would form a vacuum. DN40 sounds small to me. Is that another Murray quote? AA On 9/2/2016 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: Why do you say the pressure was higher than 0.0 bar when

  1   2   3   4   5   >