Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion : factory location

Well, If they want to be consistent with their statement that they would warm up the Police Academy they need to have an industrial facility quite close to it. There are not many other buildings that qualify. Giovanni On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > At 08:25 PM 12/20/2

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion : factory location

At 08:25 PM 12/20/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: AND HERE IT IS ! Go on the left of the academy and you see a symbol of a factory. If you translate from Greek this what you get: Former Factory Atmatzidis Defkalion says no : http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4983#p4983 X

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

At 04:54 PM 12/21/2011, you wrote: What makes Rossi's better than a good science amateur? Well, he hired Focardi to check on the radiation. So it WAS done under adult supervision.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

What makes Rossi's better than a good science amateur? Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > At 02:45 PM 12/21/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > >> If LENR is real it would be a perfect ground for citizen scientists. >> > > Lets see ... poisonous nano-nickel powde

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

No, it is not necessary but I'm saying that to claim I have nothing against LENR per se. I was ecstatic when the F&P announcement came out for the fist time. I was at my first year in Physics in Bologna and I thought I lived in an amazing time. The entire thing turned out to be pretty disappointing

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

The staff? http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.1684.1323189515!/image/ehrsson.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/ehrsson.jpg harry

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Robert, According to Newtonian gravity the unwarping would happen instantaneously (Newton of course didn't think of warping, he said "I will not make any hypothesis about gravity's nature but only on how it works"). But the unwarping happening in a finite time is one and the same with gravitational

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

At 02:45 PM 12/21/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: If LENR is real it would be a perfect ground for citizen scientists. Lets see ... poisonous nano-nickel powder, explosive high-temperature hydrogen, gamma rays (are you sure that you'll get eCat-level 500KEV, and not Celani's needle-pegging b

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote a message that I happened to > notice: > > >> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow >> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it >> from someone who claims to

RE: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

s certainly never mentioned in the many power calculations. OTOH, I believe that Rossi had, in one of his blog posts, claimed that he'd always used it. Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:40:18 -0800 Subject: Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion From: maryyu...@g

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Robert Leguillon < robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Then call up MaryYugo, and invite her to dinner and a show. Show her it > works, and serve up some crow. > I prefer civet de lapin. Just out of curiosity, was there an RFG involved in the early experime

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

It isn't necessary to to have "a strong desire for LENR to be true". You only need a desire to seriously examine the evidence, and if it isn't satisfactory to YOU, then move on to something else. What else do you want? If you need help processing your past disappointments then seek therapy. I have

RE: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

The biggest problem with the early P&F replication attempts was the lack of respect given to the reactants. People trying to replicate did not understand that it was a surface phenomenon. They did not understand that the cathode could be easily poisoned. They did not understand that the sur

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

I agree with Joshua well explained arguments. In particular I don't believe for a second that there is a overall scientist conspiracy against LENR. Maybe some strong skepticism due to the past of the field and the nature of the claims made that go beyond known physics but not outright close mindedn

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote a message that I happened to > notice: > > >> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow >> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it >> from someone who claims to

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > > >> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I >> would take LENR seriously. >> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and >> blind methods would be accept

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Are you kidding, or what? > > > > On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > >> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I >> would take LENR seriously. >> Multiple tests done by respectable scienti

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > > People are fooling around with genetics in their home labs. > This is actually pretty cool and I support the emergence of these citizen > scientists. > > Sorry- not cool: terrifying. How soon we forget the legend of Frankenstein. S

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

That would not stop amateurs from trying to reproduce the results and even improving on design, fuel and so on. Are you aware of the phenomenon of biohacking? People are fooling around with genetics in their home labs. This is actually pretty cool and I support the emergence of these citizen scient

RE: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

As far as I am concerned, I am looking for information that I would be happy to present to a 'friendly' member of staff in our Physics dept as reasonable evidence that there is something interesting going on that might be worth looking at. The reports of someone having visited Defkalion is somethi

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something but it is not claimed over and over that LENR > are tabletop experiments that are achieved with relatively simple > equipment? Is not the incredible interest in LENR by supporters due to the > fact that it co

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote a message that I happened to > notice: > > >> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow >> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it >> from someone who claims to

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On 11-12-21 05:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: "They have many highly qualified professional scientists" --> "They had at least two people who said they were scientists, and sounded technically reasonable" Who told you there are only two?!? Where did you get that infor

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

And this is why LENR is on the edge of pseudoscience. Because it is so damn difficult to do and when it happens (often randomly) it is not certain what really happened if anything. Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote a message that I happened to >

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > Doesn't matter. Heat stored in water is useless to keep water boiling. > Heat stored in steel at a much higher temperature can keep water boiling > until it cools down to the boiling point of water. Don't you now anything? > > The comparison

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Joshua Cude wrote a message that I happened to notice: > Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow > the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it > from someone who claims to be able to make it reproducibly. > This is one of the most inco

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > From Giovanni: > > > Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can > > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm > > of pseudoscience. > > I disagree with that assumptio

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Maybe I'm missing something but it is not claimed over and over that LENR are tabletop experiments that are achieved with relatively simple equipment? Is not the incredible interest in LENR by supporters due to the fact that it could change energy production in such way that every household could h

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Assuming the technology is valid, all I think that would be necessary > for "LENR" to escape the realm of pseudoscience is for products that > exploit the technology to be sold off the shelves of

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > >> And remember, ... you're the person who thought the Rossi demo of October >> 6 was iron clad. > > > I still do. So do many others. > > > >> It probably did involve some iron (or steel) but hardly was conclusive. >> > > Iron has 10 ti

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Iron has 10 times lower specific heat than water. It would store less > heat, not more. It could not be heated more than a few hundred degrees with > this equipment, so total heat storage would be less than it would with a > pot of water. >

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Alan J Fletcher wrote: ps : On the demonstration front -- I once demonstrated a new Engineering Workstation --- schematic entry, logic simulation We were still coding the night before the exhibition floor opened (DAC 1983). Nobody noticed that after issuing a "redraw" of a complicated schema

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > >> Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and >> post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience. >> > > That will never happen. But tell me something. As you know, amat

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Blind tests are not done just in the social sciences. I work in the field of gravitational waves that coincidentally is another somehow controversial field. Just because it is controversial, just because it has a history of past false claims the almost 700 scientists, working in the scientific col

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: "They have many highly qualified professional scientists" --> "They had at least two people who said they were scientists, and sounded technically reasonable" Who told you there are only two?!? Where did you get that information? I know more than two people there my

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist > could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at > instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the > researchers are

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Oh, er, yeah, that kind of blind testing... yes, that makes quite a bit of sense, after all, doesn't it. On 11-12-21 04:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in physics. It

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is completely possible that he is saying things that are not true. Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that case one witness would not be enough) we cannot say for sure what is going on. Yo

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

OK, look, the Paradyne thing wasn't meant to be an exact analogy. But none the less, the thing it's being compared with is a site visit in which tests were *not* *performed*. The visitor supposedly verified that there was lots of nifty equipment on site, but didn't see it actually do anything

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

At 01:38 PM 12/21/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: Simpler explanation: Jed's witness is not telling the truth. We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is completely possible that he is saying things that are not true. Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Giovanni recently expressed the following proclamation: > Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm > of pseudoscience. Soon afterwards, Mr. Rothwell followed up with: > I suspect you [Giovanni] are making up unreasonab

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Stephen, >From your previous posts I guess you are joking. But if Rossi's can do it (and he is a clumsy amateur after all, maybe with some good machinist skills learned as a youth in his father shop) everybody should be able to do it, right? Fission is not that difficult to happen, just get a rad

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in > physics. It's nutty to even suggest it. > Actually, Miles, Boss, Mizuno and some others did do blind testing. Single blind. That is to say, they knew the history of the sample, but the labs

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I > would take LENR seriously. > Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and blind > methods would be acceptable. > This has been done for 22 years. High sigma data has b

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Are you kidding, or what? On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I would take LENR seriously. Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and blind methods "blind methods" ??? What, you thi

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Simpler explanation: Jed's witness is not telling the truth. We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is completely possible that he is saying things that are not true. Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that case one witness would not be enough) we cannot say

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Yes. For long enough to get through the contract awards process, and, as > far as I can tell, for several years after that. > > If Paradyne had delivered on time and on budget the fake would never have > been noticed. > The article says: When Paradyne couldn't de

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Jed, I do want LENR to be true. I have said that. In fact, because I consider such possibility so important that I want it to be true and verifiable and not something we desire to be true. This why my high standards. I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I would ta

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic. > > > Ah, but this is implausible deniability. Santostasi will not believe it > until "every amateur enthusiast" can reproduce the effect. That is

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Andrea Selva wrote: Jed please, for prcision sake, allow me to make a small correction to one > of you sentences. You forgot only 2 words > > *If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. *They > said* they have: > * > * > and so on. > * > No, my contact said

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On 11-12-21 04:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: LOL (well, snickering a little, anyway). Entertaining thought -- makes it sound like the link I posted earlier on the Paradyne boondoggle may have been more apposite than I realized at t

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

I have seen a lot of pseudoscience products in WallMart as healing magnetic bracelets, shoe soles that can extract toxins from your body and so on. There is a lot of crap available commercially that makes all kind of claims. But while some amateurs don't know what they are doing, many of them have

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you > that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true > is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite). > > I have been disappointed so much in my professional an

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Jed, What I meant that you need to accumulate a lot of reports around the world and over time to infer a pattern and make a useful inference about the phenomenon. For example, if many witnesses over the years see meteorites coming from a particular location in the sky and during a particular time o

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Jed please, for prcision sake, allow me to make a small correction to one of you sentences. You forgot only 2 words *If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. *They said* they have: * * and so on. * 2011/12/21 Jed Rothwell > Giovanni Santostasi wrote: >

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

>From Giovanni: > Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm > of pseudoscience. I disagree with that assumption. What the hell do amateur enthusiasts have to do with validation? Assuming the technology is valid, all I t

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > LOL (well, snickering a little, anyway). Entertaining thought -- makes > it sound like the link I posted earlier on the Paradyne boondoggle may have > been more apposite than I realized at the time; it bears repeating: > Did a computer expert go to Paradyne for se

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Harry, I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite). I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life from people making

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Mary Yugo wrote: I remember that Defkalion used someone else's (Piantelli's?) images of high > vacuum equipment in one of their news releases as if it were their own. > No, they did not do that. A news organization did. I am suggesting your contact may have misconstrued what he saw -- that's >

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On 11-12-21 03:50 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com>> wrote: . . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to erroneous conclusions which th

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Harry Veeder wrote: Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic. > Ah, but this is *im*plausible deniability. Santostasi will not believe it until "every amateur enthusiast" can reproduce the effect. That is a novel standard! I think he made it up on the spur of the mome

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> . . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to >> erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible >> as the proposition that the information is correct. >> > > Are yo

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

When the technology gets to that stage, it will be powering your home. Amazing that you suggest successful replication by amateurs is needed before main stream science acceptance. Oh BTW that happened in 2002: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#HighSchoolStudents They saw excess heat and

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. Not always. In many cases, only one witness sees them. In all cases of birdwatch sightings, or right whale sightings, only one observer sees them. > Until LENR is something that every amateur enthu

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic. Harry On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The path > of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little about >

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

But there is also scientific fraud, Unfortunately it happens everywhere even in prestigious institutions. There are even Science and Nature articles that have been retracted because the results described were shown later to be fraudulent. Scientists that have put a lot of stakes in a line of resea

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On 11-12-21 03:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Giovanni Santostasi > wrote: All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it factual evidence at this point. Wh

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Mary Yugo wrote: > . . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to > erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible > as the proposition that the information is correct. > Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The path of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little about constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of this information one can apply it for useful science. I think in general the m

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy? > The thing is we don't know. I doubt your above rather extreme propositions but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to erroneous conclusions which t

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Daniel Rocha wrote: Didn't you say before that they were there just to check the reactors and > not do testings? Wouldn't days count as a test? I don't get it. No, I said "No tests were done by this observer" (actually observers) meaning they did not bring their own instruments and conduct thei

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Article on Defkalion from a local Xanthi newpaper: > > > http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8221-o-antiktipos-gia-ti-defkalion-stin-xanthi-i-epomeni-parousiasi.html > That was from June 28, 2011 and IIRC was based on intervie

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to > you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it > factual evidence at this point. > Why not? Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy? This re

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Didn't you say before that they were there just to check the reactors and not do testings? Wouldn't days count as a test? I don't get it. 2011/12/21 Jed Rothwell > * Invited experts to see this for days at a time and managed to fool them. > This alone would be an astounding accomplishment. I dou

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Jed, My assessment was based on what I found on the web about some of the factual evidence as the existence of the Police Academy, industrial buildings near by, local newspaper article and so on. The article also mentioned the intention of the company to hire scientists and other personnel. Defkali

RE: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

ecember 21, 2011 10:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: > Careful Terry.  Mark will complain you're wasting precious Vort bandwidth... > or S/N ... or some such.  Or maybe

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > But I agree with you all this doesn't prove that they will. > It just shows that if they are creating an elaborate scam they take at > least care to have some minimal props for it. > If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. They have: *

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Well, this is what we know at this point: there is a Police Academy in Xanthi, there is a building that is an industrial facility at a reasonable distance near by, somebody labeled the factory as associated with Defkalion. Also the article from a local Xanthi newspaper I have indicated mentions tha

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: > Careful Terry.  Mark will complain you're wasting precious Vort bandwidth... > or S/N ... or some such.  Or maybe he only chases after me? No, he knows I am the jester -- the doty old fool. Jes doin' my yob mon. T

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: > > > I think you're being pedantic here. > > I love this urban dictionary definition: > > 3. pedantic 76 up, 45 down > Ostentatious regarding one's intelligence. Using this wor

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: > I think you're being pedantic here. I love this urban dictionary definition: 3. pedantic 76 up, 45 down Ostentatious regarding one's intelligence. Using this word also makes you this word. T

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > AND HERE IT IS ! > Go on the left of the academy and you see a symbol of a factory. If you > translate from Greek this what you get: > > Former Factory Atmatzidis > > It will house the 1 of the 3 plants of the company power Defkalion.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On 11-12-20 08:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: Oh? On-demand production of **useful** heat? From gas phase hydrogen on nickel, with nothing but roasting to trigger the reaction? By "roasting" I assume you mean gas loading followed by

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > How do you know these are extravagant claims? > The claims are extravagant, whether true or not. Why else is everyone so excited about them? > If these claims were true then they were not bluster. We don't know yet. > I would say claims

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > But what is wrong with that?!? Nearly every effect discovered since 1700 > has started off on a small scale, and was later scaled up: > High temperature superconductivity has not yet been scaled up successfully for commercial purposes. And

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I guess there is no evidence if you cover your eyes and your ears and yell > "nya, nya, I can't hear you!!" like a 5-year-old. > > There is plenty of evidence if you look up Ni-H experiments at > LENR-CANR.org. There is a *mountain* of evid

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On 20/12/11 20:32, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Defkalion is not only starting a company, it is developing revolutionary technology, dealing with complex business arrangements, and dealing with Rossi, who is a difficult person to do business with. S

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Nice find. Now all we need is someone to do a drive by and take a few photos to see the progress of the factory. On 21/12/11 04:30, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: So the coordinates of the Defkalion factory are: 41.1188 24.8674

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=el&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xanthipress.gr%2Feidiseis%2Fpolitiki%2F8221-o-antiktipos-gia-ti-defkalion-stin-xanthi-i-epomeni-parousiasi.html On 12/21/2011 3:51 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: A

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Article on Defkalion from a local Xanthi newpaper: http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8221-o-antiktipos-gia-ti-defkalion-stin-xanthi-i-epomeni-parousiasi.html Giovanni On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > So the coordinates of the Defkalion factory are: > >

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

So the coordinates of the Defkalion factory are: 41.1188 24.8674 Giovanni On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > AND HERE IT IS ! > Go on the left of the academy and you see a symbol of a factory. If you > translate from Greek this what you get: > > Former Factory Atma

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

AND HERE IT IS ! Go on the left of the academy and you see a symbol of a factory. If you translate from Greek this what you get: Former Factory Atmatzidis It will house the 1 of the 3 plants of the company power Defkalion. Also there have been some installation work. Giovann On Tue, Dec 20, 2

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

And here where the Police academy is located on google maps: http://wikimapia.org/17980152/Police-academy Giovanni. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Mary, > This was easy to check. There is indeed a Xanthi Police Academy. Not yet > news if they are indeed warmed up

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Mary, This was easy to check. There is indeed a Xanthi Police Academy. Not yet news if they are indeed warmed up by e-cats. http://www.xanthi.ilsp.gr/cultureportalweb/print.php?article_id=1070&lang=en&print_mode=article Giovanni On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yug

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Mary Yugo wrote: I suggest you hedge your bets. >> > > I've done that all along. > Maybe amp it up a few notches? And please don't patronize me. It's not very elegant. Grasshopper > indeed. You're not some sort of senior sage. > Ah, but I am an honorary oriental. (Brevetted rank.) Plus I

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I suggest you hedge your bets. > I've done that all along. And please don't patronize me. It's not very elegant. Grasshopper indeed. You're not some sort of senior sage. You're just trying to decipher a deliberately deceptive and unc

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Mary Yugo wrote: I think you're being pedantic here. Of course I mean that they made the > exorbitant claims without proper evidence, not that I have proof that the > claims are false. The claims are incredible and extreme. > Not as far as I know. They are not incredible or extreme in view of

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > >> >> Very true but all the more reason to avoid the extravagant claims and >> bluster which was so obvious in earlier postings by Defkalion to their >> forum -- around June of this year. Perhaps you missed those? Things

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > But what is wrong with that?!? Nearly every effect discovered since 1700 > has started off on a small scale, and was later scaled up: electricity, > electromagnetism, radio waves, fission, lasers, transistors . . . > Transistors have been s

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

Mary Yugo wrote: > > Very true but all the more reason to avoid the extravagant claims and > bluster which was so obvious in earlier postings by Defkalion to their > forum -- around June of this year. Perhaps you missed those? Things like > having dozens of reactors under test, varying outputs

  1   2   >