You are right. It was Jones Beene. My apologies.
AA
On 4/3/2017 5:41 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
Once again - mistaken identity. I made no such pledge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* a.ashfield <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 9:23 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.
Brian,
So your pledge not to reply to my posts didn't last long.
I would have thought even you would know what a pyramid scheme was.
AA
On 4/2/2017 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:
Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Che <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
<http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/>
Like it or not, Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.
Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)
Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.
AA
On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:
Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken
seriously here on vortex-L?
At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a
great deal.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending
time boning up on atomic physics.
What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others
here, more expert than me, will comment.
1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=223#comment-1273347>
Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the
nuclear physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be
real to obtain the respect of the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked
yesterday, gives one proton, one electron and one
antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you
have one lepton and this would be against the leptons
number conservation law: therefore you have to assume
the emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus
lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the
antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the right of the
equation, so that the law is respected. You could say
that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an artifact,
but…it is, albeit without this trick the Standard Model
would brutally crack down: realistically, between a
crack and a trick is better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
