No I think the resistence went beyond superconducting to negative resistance and overcome the flow of time.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > James-- > > Did you forget what you couldn't resist because the resistance was too > great and it didn't happen. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 6:47 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Rossi Effect Not Before June-- > > Sorry, I just couldn't resist, Axil. > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:45 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W67qnktk_8#t=947 >> >> >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/47 >>> >>> >>> >>> Focus: Why We Can’t Remember the Future >>> >>> >>> >>> In absolute certainty, LENR exists in the future; it is predestined >>> because it will eventually be discovered just like any major operating >>> principle of the universe must ultimately be. But how can we remember how >>> it works in the here and now and what is its eventual configuration. The >>> future exists just as surely as the past; this future just needs to be >>> configured in the present to assume the certainty of that preordained >>> future. >>> >>> >>> >>> We are captured by the certainty of this inescapable fate, of the surety >>> of the existence of what LENR must certainly be. What is not sure, is who >>> will remember that future and bring us into that future reality. The future >>> is looking for someone to remember; It is the uncertainty of the present >>> that we struggle under. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Ken Deboer <barlaz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Whoops, accidentally interrupted my above message. To conclude: >>>> >>>> That unraveling will, of course, take some great deal more effort, as >>>> well as probably a great deal of time and money, even though we all hope(d) >>>> that it could be carried off by the 'underground'. Lennart Thomas seems >>>> to have a good understanding of how the "Standard Model' of current >>>> business operates and his general approach may yet be necessary. It seems >>>> likely, in fact, as soon as a little more meat is on the LENR bones (or >>>> Rossi finally drops the bomb) that the huge industry surrounding LENR will >>>> suddenly devleop. Who will do this is a critical questiion. I'd rather >>>> not buy my lenr energy from Duke Enerergy or BP. >>>> Cheers, ken >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Ken Deboer <barlaz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> FUTURE? >>>>> I'd like to throw in a couple of general comments on the current >>>>> trend of this Forum and LENR in general (Just as a cheerleader, since I am >>>>> totally incapable of contributing or even understanding the technical >>>>> details). >>>>> Despite no real evidence of any imminent breakthrough, still, we >>>>> seem to be witnessing something like an amorphous landlside of some kind >>>>> that is slowly inching us down (up?) towards a preliminary working model >>>>> of >>>>> LENR. The ideas floating around the last several months seem like they are >>>>> kind of spiraling around the central kernel of the mystery. The ideas >>>>> around the size and shape of particles (nano and othewise), the role of >>>>> magnetism, RF, nanoplasmonics, lattices and the like seems to be taking a >>>>> (shadowy) shape and leads us to hope that a working synthesis might not be >>>>> that far away.. (We eagerly await too, Dr. Storms new book and work, and >>>>> Dr. Craven's >>>>> stuff, and MFMP, and others). >>>>> I am reminded of the history of genetics, where a gene was for a >>>>> long time thought of as a 'particle of inheritance', b ut without any idea >>>>> of what it might physically look like or how it worked. THe concept of >>>>> the NAE, the site of the magic activity on a metal, is analogous (and >>>>> equally pregnant as an heuristic tool). The nature of the gene of course >>>>> has been beaten down into its ultimate form, and now the nature of the NAE >>>>> is being dissected in somewhat the same manner as the gene was. There >>>>> were >>>>> Nobel prizes attached to the genetic unraveling and there will be Nobel >>>>> prizes in the NAE unraveling. We would be thrilled if some of 'or guys' >>>>> would be in that number. At the least, there seems to be some definite >>>>> directions as to what kind of experimental reactors to test out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yesterday Rossi (on his reader blog) indicated that the third >>>>>> party tests would *not* be reported before June. >>>>>> >>>>>> Vortexers have at least another month to speculate on the mechanism >>>>>> of the Ni-H Rossi Effect. However it may be quite bit longer, depending >>>>>> upon patent disclosure strategy. What are the possibilities regarding >>>>>> outing of a theory supported by good data in conjunction with the >>>>>> release >>>>>> of the third party report? >>>>>> >>>>>> Like Rossi implies in his response to a comment yesterday regarding >>>>>> the probability of the Rossi Effect happening naturally, the design of >>>>>> his >>>>>> reactor certainly had some design behind it. I think Focardi nailed the >>>>>> theory and should be hailed appropriately. Rossi had the wherewithal to >>>>>> add some development funds and theory of his own and probably should get >>>>>> the Nobel Prize. I hope it happens soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am planning a trip to Italy in September and will visit the >>>>>> University of Bologna for two days with the objective of talking with >>>>>> folks >>>>>> who knew Focardi and are currently working in the field of solid states >>>>>> physics and nano technology. Alain has already asked me to visit the >>>>>> History Dept there as well to find out the facts about the death of Bruno >>>>>> which this blog discussed a few weeks ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will report on my trip and interactions. Vortexers that may have >>>>>> other ideas or questions, if so inclined, should present them to me via >>>>>> my >>>>>> own email address so that I might address them with the Bologna >>>>>> historians >>>>>> or researchers. Alain has already given me some good ideas and leads. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob Cook >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >>>>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 9:38 AM >>>>>> *Subject:* [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pasadena: Theater Arts at Caltech >>>>>> dramatizes the discovery and debunking of “cold fusion” (bring tomatoes) >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that play has been around for a while. I heard about it >>>>>> years ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Jed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
