maybe some should revert the question?
is there any credible critic by someone who have proven an artifact ,
published it, and that this artifact explain many possible positive results
?
I feel there is very few, narrow, and addressed.
am I wrong?
2013/12/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
is there any credible critic by someone who have proven an artifact ,
published it, and that this artifact explain many possible positive results
?
Not that I am aware of. There are only a handful of skeptical papers that
even attempt to do this.
It remind me Bo Hoistad answering PompEriksson paper.
the most shocking is that Wikipedia admin who are very strict on the
quality, swallow it like my daughter swallow chocolate milk, and refuse to
publish the rebuttal by Bo Hoistad on ibtimes.
pathetic
2013/12/7 Jed Rothwell
These tests have been repeated thousands of times. Even if they were
repeated millions of times they would not convince so-called skeptics. If
200 labs are not enough, 2,000 or 20,000 would not be enough either. The
only thing that will convince opponents would be a commercial product.
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
No. I think you're caught up in some sort of conspiracy mindset loop. I
think there are a lot of people that want to believe but have burned by too
many measurement errors.
There have not been many measurement errors. I'll bet you can't
I wrote:
No. I think you're caught up in some sort of conspiracy mindset loop. I
think there are a lot of people that want to believe but have burned by too
many measurement errors.
There have not been many measurement errors. I'll bet you can't list more
than five.
Let me add that
yes Jed, it seems many people use the wildcard answer there have been
errors...
is there any peer-reviewed paper showing proven artifact,
and was it corrected ?
(just to answer to the usual pretended physicist who parrot wikipedia
without any real fact in the mind).
2013/12/6 Jed Rothwell
Obviously it can, since it has been.
I long ago realized never to say something like this publicly unless
- I had personally done it myself
- Someone everyone trusts had done it
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Blaze Spinnaker
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously it can, since it has been.
I long ago realized never to say something like this publicly unless
- I had personally done it myself
- Someone everyone trusts had done it
Martin Fleischmann and Stan Pons did it, in France, long
That's still a COP of 1.1 from what I can tell. Not quite LENR+
Still, this is probably the most exciting / credible evidence yet that I've
seen. Hopefully they scale up the scaled up version.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
-Original
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
That's still a COP of 1.1 from what I can tell. Not quite LENR+
The concept of a COP (coefficient of production) is meaningless in cold
fusion. Even more so in this experiment than in most others, because the
input power is only used to raise
Until we see a repeatable / verifiable experiment with a high COP, the only
thing that will be meaningless here is LENR.
That being said, what Technova is doing is interesting. They did say
however at the end of their slides that further measurement is needed to
verify the results.
On Thu,
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
Until we see a repeatable / verifiable experiment with a high COP, the only
thing that will be meaningless here is LENR.
We have seen repeatable, verifiable experiments since 1990. The effect have
been verified by over 200 world-class
Regarding the ratio of zero input, any output, I meant to say:
You can't GET any better than that.
(This is kind of annoying.)
- Jed
Cold Fusion is by definition a source of energy
and size matters most. A system which gives
4kW output for 1kW input is more useful and valuable
than one giving 4mW for zero input.
Repeatable is a statistic concept - the same result is
obtained in 100 cases of 100 experiments.
Scale-up, is,
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Cold Fusion is by definition a source of energy
and size matters most.
No, it does not. Most devices in the world require less than 100 W. The
most valuable, and the most expensive energy sources are pacemaker and
hearing-aid batteries that produce
I wrote:
The most valuable, and the most expensive energy sources are pacemaker and
hearing-aid batteries that produce milliwatts.
Correction: microwatts. 300 to 600 µWe (microwatts-electric).
A cheap, reliable cold fusion electric power supply that produces 100 W
would probably satisfy
If Edison had started out with cold fusion instead of coal-fired
generators, power distribution as we know it would never have come into
being.
***Good point. But now that we have this 19th century power distribution
channel in place, we should aim to keep it. The rollout for LENR should
address
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
If Edison had started out with cold fusion instead of coal-fired
generators, power distribution as we know it would never have come into
being.
***Good point. But now that we have this 19th century power distribution
channel in place, we should aim
Dear Jed,
Perhaps it would be useful to write about the quality problem for the CF
based energy sources , in the light of the teachings of the American
classics, Deming, Juran, Crosby.
The small, 100W devices need very good reliability- I have two friends
using pacemaker and I would not dare
to
Looks promising.
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36813/MassFlowCalorimetryAbstract.pdf
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36813/MassFlowCalorimetryPresentation.pdf
p. 19 shows 19 or 20 W excess. 20 W is a lot more than they saw
previously. The
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
Looks promising.
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36813/MassFlowCalo
rimetryAbstract.pdf
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36813/MassFlowCalo
rimetryPresentation.pdf
p. 19 shows 19 or 20 W excess.
22 matches
Mail list logo
