Robin van Spaandonk's message of October 02, 2009 ,
Hi Robin and Jed,
Robin wrote:
Let me give a concrete example. Muon catalyzed fusion clearly meets the
definition of a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, and hence papers on it could
find a
place in your library, but I suspect you wouldn't even
George Holz's message of Saturday, October 03, 2009 1:50 PM
[snip] Yes, it is reasonable to feel almost alone in considering non lattice
based cold fusion, but there are a few of us out there quietly considering
the relationship of Mills experiments to cold fusion experiments. It is
interesting
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:03:51 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
At 06:30 PM 9/30/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Note that in at least
one of Dr. Oriani's papers he reports ionizing radiation emitted
from the vapor
above a CF cell.
I don't think that there is any
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:53:22 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Bias is too strong a word. It is more a case of neat-freak programmer (me)
who likes to keep things in neat categories. I meant what I said: people
come to LENR-CANR looking for one thing, and I don't want them to
On Oct 2, 2009, at 4:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
It's because CF started with lattice based
reactions, and all the work since has also been lattice based
(AFAIK)- in fact I
doubt that anyone other than me has even considered that it might
not need to be
lattice based.
Not true.
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:21:08 -0800:
Hi,
Sorry Horace, no harm intended.
[snip]
On Oct 2, 2009, at 4:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
It's because CF started with lattice based
reactions, and all the work since has also been lattice based
(AFAIK)- in
At 08:18 PM 10/2/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:03:51 -0400:
It
might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation
approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed fusion,
basically a protein, I
On Oct 2, 2009, at 5:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:21:08
-0800:
Hi,
Sorry Horace, no harm intended.
No harm experienced. No emotional content to my response was
intended. Sorry, my writing style is a bit dry and terse, so
On Oct 2, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:18 PM 10/2/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009
00:03:51 -0400:
It
might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation
approach, we might suspect, would
[snip] might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation
approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed fusion,
basically a protein, I assume, setting up confinement conditions that
facilitate fusion.[snip]
Abd,
I am not familiar with this biological
At 08:58 AM 10/1/2009, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
[snip] might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation
approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed fusion,
basically a protein, I assume, setting up confinement conditions that
facilitate fusion.[snip]
Abd,
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:30:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The transmutation of
radioactive waste, which is what his latest work has been about, is
not so easy a topic for home LENR kits, unless one happens to have
some nuclear waste lying about. Fun for the kids?
At 06:35 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:30:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The transmutation of
radioactive waste, which is what his latest work has been about, is
not so easy a topic for home LENR kits, unless one happens to have
some nuclear
At 04:39 AM 9/30/2009, Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Rothwell (admitting he edits papers): Swartz's assertions are
crazy nonsense. I would never demand to edit papers..
(but then in the next paragraph)
When I am preparing papers for a proceedings, that's another matter.
Embarrassing.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz quoted me:
At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims
related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or
biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional
theories.
That is right. As I said, I recall we
As best as I can tell the on-going dispute between Mr. Rothwell and
Dr. Swartz appears to revolve around Dr. Swartz desire to prove that
Jed censors experimental data from CF researchers, himself included.
Meanwhile, from Jed's perspective, it would appear that Dr. Swartz
refuses to follow a few
Chris Zell wrote:
Umm. where might these alternative sites be, that offer papers
on transmutation? I think reading them might be an enriching experience.
That was a paper by Roberto Monti. He has attended several cold
fusion conferences. He does Medieval lead-to-gold style
I have heard of websites paying huge data costs and I have never understood
it at all.
While $33 a month isn't quite what I'm talking about a host such as say
GoDaddy charges...
$4.99/mo for 300GB Transfer
$6.99/mo for 1,500GB Transfer
$14.99/mo for Unlimited Transfer (and unlimited space)
On
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:16:39 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
In some ways you have to draw an arbitrary line, for the convenience
of the reader. We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I
suppose they are cold fusion. This is not because I have anything
thing
At 11:16 AM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
In some ways you have to draw an arbitrary line, for the convenience
of the reader. We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I
suppose they are cold fusion.
Most of Mill's claims are only peripheral to cold fusion or
low-energy nuclear
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I
suppose they are cold fusion. This is not because I have anything
thing against Mills' work. It is because people come to LENR-CANR to
learn about metal-lattice based cold fusion -- the Fleischmann Pons
effect, or
At 04:13 PM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Chris Zell wrote:
Umm. where might these alternative sites be, that offer papers
on transmutation? I think reading them might be an enriching experience.
That was a paper by Roberto Monti. He has attended several cold
fusion conferences. He
]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 11:16 AM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
In some ways you have to draw an arbitrary line, for the convenience
of the reader. We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I
suppose they are cold fusion.
Most of Mill's claims are only
At 06:30 PM 9/30/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Note that in at least
one of Dr. Oriani's papers he reports ionizing radiation emitted
from the vapor
above a CF cell.
I don't think that there is any substantial suspicion that this
radiation results from anything other than decay of
At 10:25 PM 9/28/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
(A blogger asked me what is the source of the dispute, and the
academic politics. I like my answer, so let me copy it here. This
is, perhaps, a softer, more understanding response than I might have
made years ago.)
That's a good explanation, Jed.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it.
I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think it
is a bad idea to make conference proceedings only available as
copyright books. Biberian recently told me that they have
of the disagreement over cold fusion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it.
I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think it is a bad
idea to make conference proceedings only available as copyright books. Biberian
At 11:03 AM 9/29/2009, you wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
For their part, the cold fusion
believers did a lousy job of selling it.
I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think it is
a bad idea to make conference proceedings only available as copyright
books. Biberian
The documents they were given are listed here:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions
- Jed
Jed, thank you for that list.
Had not seen it before.
How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers
who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10,
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers
who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10,
Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper
on that highly selected, therefore censored, list.
Yes, it is censored, but you yourself are the censor!
I think they gave the reviewers all those papers because years ago I
was in someone's office, and I noticed a cardboard box full of papers
with familiar titles. I asked what's all this? and the person said
that's what we gave the reviewers. Those are all the references in
Peter's paper.
It
At 01:09 PM 9/29/2009, you wrote:
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
wrote:
How ironic (or not)
that the two LANR/CF researchers
who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10,
Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper
on that highly selected, therefore censored, list.
Yes, it is censored, but
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Sorry that you took this personally, but ...
Wrong. You were given copies. Multiple copies.
By disk. On paper. By mail with green card.
I couldn't read them.
Look, we have been over this 100 times. I will repeat once more. Here
is what you must do if you
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Dash is #52, ICCF6. Dash never censors anything and never denies
permission, but I don't happen to have that paper in electronic format.
Gosh. I don't see Prof. Dash at #52 in that table,
so I must not understand what you meant.
I just explained that in the
At 11:03 AM 9/29/2009, you wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it.
I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think
it is a bad idea to make conference proceedings only available as
copyright books.
At 11:37 AM 9/29/2009, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
I think the biggest disconnect is trying to make a direct jump from
the materials to fusion without better explaining the interim step
that supplies the energy to
Create the fusion artifacts. I am following a current thread Zero
point
At 01:35 PM 9/29/2009, you wrote:
I'll bet if you contacted those people today (the ones still alive),
you would find they have not learned a thing about cold fusion and
they would not change a word of their endorsements.
Unless you could approach them in a way likely to generate rapport,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'll bet if you contacted those people today (the ones still
alive), you would find they have not learned a thing about cold
fusion and they would not change a word of their endorsements.
Unless you could approach them in a way likely to generate rapport,
and
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
They said they emphasized their own work because they understood
their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the
panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work.
That seems sensible to me.
Sensible and very wrong. There is
In reply to Dr. Mitchell Swartz's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:44:24 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Corroborating your fabrications, Jed, you have told others and us
that you demand to EDIT the papers.
[snip]
..from the perspective of an outsider to all of this, I get the impression that
Jed edit's
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Dr. Mitchell Swartz's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:44:24
-0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Corroborating your fabrications, Jed, you have told others and us
that you demand to EDIT the papers.
[snip]
..from the perspective of an outsider to all of this, I get
At 04:58 PM 9/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'll bet if you contacted those people today (the ones still
alive), you would find they have not learned a thing about cold
fusion and they would not change a word of their endorsements.
Unless you could approach them in
At 06:31 PM 9/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
They said they emphasized their own work because they understood
their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the
panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the
work. That seems sensible to
(A blogger asked me what is the source of the dispute, and the academic
politics. I like my answer, so let me copy it here. This is, perhaps, a
softer, more understanding response than I might have made years ago.)
The academic politics are complicated and difficult to sum up in a way that
treats
44 matches
Mail list logo
