On Aug 25, 2007, at 9:39 PM, thomas malloy wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Horace
Too bad there is no way to get that kind of 'official-sounding'
crap from Vassilatos off the internet (or reclassified as
fiction). And here is the most important message of the thread -
with what Richard Hull
Jones Beene wrote:
Horace
Too bad there is no way to get that kind of 'official-sounding' crap
from Vassilatos off the internet (or reclassified as fiction). And
here is the most important message of the thread - with what Richard
Hull says about Vassilatos - basically that he is "just wron
Jones Beene wrote:
That is preposterous!
Not at all. To personalize a comparison related to how fast $$ can
add up, when following simple false info or false claims - think
about how much your time is worth and how many hours you spent on
the simple false lead that the Greg Watson spread ab
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Do we really want some future R&D lab wasting precious millions,
pursuing Farnsworth's deception - which because of sloppy journalism
gets repeated enough time to make it sound authoritative?
That is preposterous!
Not at all. To personalize a comparison related to how
Jones Beene wrote:
I stand by the assertion that Gerry Vassilatos is not just wrong,
but guilty of terrible journalism in this instance, and this calls
for the "debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth" of his
oft-guote disinformation.
If I ever find myself on trial I hope you are not
I stand by the assertion that Gerry Vassilatos is not just wrong, but
guilty of terrible journalism in this instance, and this calls for the
"debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth" of his oft-guote
disinformation.
It is very likely that Farnsworth, despite all the good things he did
Jones Beene wrote:
Then that is the difference between them and the Farnsworth claim of
ignition - which did NOT happen, and which even his close associates
have admitted - Farnsworth falsified evidence for.
They did not "admit" that. Some of them accused him, others did not.
From Richard Hu
Jed Rothwell wrote:
I would not want people to go around "debunking" the "urban
myths" about my observations of the Griggs device, or Mizuno's 11-day
heat after death event.
Did you make up that statistics, or invent the data?
If so, then your observations should be debunked.
These things
On Aug 23, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
There is much to be said for Charles Fort's method of collecting
anomalies with an open-minded, non-judgmental attitude. We should
not demand that they be promptly explained or debunked -- voted up
or down. The Fortean Times carries on his t
Horace Heffner wrote:
We can be absolutely sure it was nowhere near self-sustaining at the
neutron numbers given.
I had in mind that the neutron numbers might be inaccurate, or that
some novel and unknown mechanism might be at work. I realize this is unlikely.
Even experts such as Farnswort
On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Horace
Since fusion reactions get far less out than 100 MeV per two
reactions, there is no chance a self sustaining hot fusion
reaction was obtained.
Yes. It looks like - on second thought, you are correct. There was
Jones Beene wrote:
Horace
Since fusion reactions get far less out than 100 MeV per two
reactions, there is no chance a self sustaining hot fusion reaction
was obtained.
Yes. It looks like - on second thought, you are correct. There was
no probably no real "runaway" after all . . .
Probab
Jeff Fink wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems that the technology was suppressed. This is a very depressing
article. It makes me think we are all wasting our time here. If any of us
manage to come up with a world changing idea we will be
Perhaps one must join the Fusor group in order to use that function, but
hopefully anyone can start with this message, which is the first - and
then follow the history thread from there.
http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_historynews&key=1102708965
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Here are some messages from the old Fusor thread (circa 2004)
relating to the events in question: debunking the the bad journalism
and urban myth fostered by Vassilatos and others.
http://www.fusor.net/board/search.php
This is an invalid URL.
- Jed
Horace
Since fusion reactions get far less out than 100 MeV per two reactions,
there is no chance a self sustaining hot fusion reaction was obtained.
Yes. It looks like - on second thought, you are correct. There was no
probably no real "runaway" after all - but there were a number of
"burnt
On Aug 22, 2007, at 5:11 AM, Jeff Fink wrote:
Recalling this line from your post in July, I was surprised to see
it had
already been done. The Farnsworth fuser was cranking out neutrons
at a rate
of 15.5 G-neutrons/sec in 1965 using a very modest amount of power,
according to the website:
h
I do not know if this was ever published, where Vassilatos is today.
- Jed
I was asking in the P.S. about Eric Dollard, whom I was googling when I came
across the Farnsworth stuff. The little I have read thus far on his Tesla
experiments and his thoughts on the nature of electricity are real
Jones Beene wrote:
Yes. It is a fascinating device, and definitely under-appreciated
except by the cult-like following, which I mentioned (Hull's forum),
but there is little evidence of any conspiracy to silence the technology.
No one said anything about a conspiracy. Vassilatos found gobs of
Yes. It is a fascinating device, and definitely under-appreciated except
by the cult-like following, which I mentioned (Hull's forum), but there
is little evidence of any conspiracy to silence the technology.
Richard Hull, who runs the Fusor Forum, and is the leading expert on the
Farnsworth F
I wrote:
He claimed that the fusor self-sustained on at least one occasion . . .
Correction: on several occasions, like the man said:
"Dr. Farnsworth reported that his team achieved a
self-sustaining reaction on several occasions...and could repeat the effect."
I do not know why I recal
Jones Beene wrote:
The problem there is that the neutron count is pitiful - ... say it
is in the 10,000 per second range or double that, which may sound
decent at first, after all it is *real fusion* (hot fusion) - but on
closer look it is way to low to be interesting for real world energy
us
Hi Jeff,
It seems that the technology was suppressed.
The Farnsworth Fusor is still going strong, and the Fusor forum is very
active (no real "suppression" other than free-market lack of interest).
Many garage inventors have running Fusors, and George Miley patented a
version useful for te
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 11:31 AM
To: vortex
Subject: [Vo]:Cold vibes & NMR
Neutrons - produced 'on demand' are arguably the most valuable commodity
on earth.
Recalling this line from your post
Jones I think you need access to a lab to follow up on your many
ideas. In fact, a bunch of us could use occasional access to a
decent lab. We need a benefactor or foundation to build a lab for
amateurs, and accept proposals and provide supplies and help, a bed
and laundry. I suppose dem
One more important detail to add:
We want to push the oscillation of the barbell to resonance at the same
time as increase the amplitude of asymmetrical jerk (cross vector). Both
of these two isotopes H and D - have a strong magnetic moment, but a
significantly different moment, and also a very
Jones wrote..
At a certain modest level of magnetic field (say the field provided by a
permanent magnet) then the nuclear components of ice with a moment, will
tend to mutually align but not quite. When one end of the barbell is
stimulated at its resonant RF and the other fells its different re
Nevermind that one aspect of the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect has been
declared nonexistent by some Hungarians:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhRvC..53..880B
Doolittles everywhere know there are no 'ruder pests' than those who
would crush cherished allusions ... and apologies in advance for
28 matches
Mail list logo
