So if this turns out to be legit (I'm 99.9% convinced it is) what is the global
significance?
________________________________
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 10:15:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Monday Update to Release Information on Self Sustain Mode
Please indicate when you are quoting and when you are writing original
material. The style you have been using indicates that all that you post is
original material, which is false.
On 01/22/2011 09:09 AM, noone noone wrote:
Dear Mr Brian Robertson:
>I again want to return on your comment, because it is very important, and I
>forgot to say a thing that I deem important too.
>The same Professors of the University of Bologna who made the test of the 14th
>of January, had made a preliminar test, closed doors, on the 17th of December
>2010.
>During that preliminar test, made to check the idoneity of their
>instrumentation, being closed doors we could make a mode of operation that,
>for
>safety issues, I cannot make in public, it is they made the reactor go also
>without the drive of the electric resistance. This preliminar test will also
>be
>described in the report that will be published on monday. In that case, we had
>a
>production of energy, with no energy at all at the input. The same thing
>happened in tests we made for our Customers, in the USA and in Europe.
>You know what happens if you put any number upside a line of fraction and zero
>below the same line.
>This is why this mode is dangerous: before use it we need to know perfectly
>the
>theory. Where I need real help is the formulation of a solid theory; books can
>help, but up to a certain point, here is a new chapter to write. Less than all
>help comments of imbeciles (from Latin “imbacula”, not an offense at all) who
>just say “it is impossible” , turn around, and go.
>Warm regards,
>A.R.
>Useless to say that if you make just warmed water instead of steam the output
>energy calculated is the same.
>Warm Regards,
>A.R.
>
