On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote:
The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who
are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and
Fleischmann had any validity
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at
the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the
direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending
On 11-11-16 08:59 AM, James Bowery wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote:
The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of
those who are
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:59 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The pseudoskeptics are basically saying ...
You lost me before the incredibly convoluted prose -- at pseudoskeptics.
There is every reason to view Rossi's claims skeptically.
At 06:02 PM 11/15/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
and selected scientists to a
demo of that device at which they were not allowed to oversee data
collection?
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41536.html
[Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test
Jed Rothwell
Tue, 18 Jan 2011
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
**
On 11-11-16 08:59 AM, James Bowery wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote:
The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at
the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of
The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who
are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and
Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver
denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If
PF's
Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who
are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and
Fleischmann had any validity to their
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was
poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before.
What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably
higher than some previous demonstrations.
disparaging name calling is evidence of exhaustion of sensible, evidence
and reason based, responses...
many here appreciate Mary Yugo's participation...
it is frustrating that the evidence is so messy, which, as many besides
Mary mention, is itself a large part of the pattern of the
His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was
poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before.
What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably
higher than some previous demonstrations. The cell was no bigger than
before.
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?
I can't ban anyone. This forum belongs to Bill Beaty. The beauty of e-mail
systems is that you can selectively ban individual people. If Mary Yugo
grates on you too much, just add her to your kill file.
Anything I
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?
I don't mind because it helps make my case about some believers but is
this not against the rules? Just curious. No need to bother. He makes
himself look bad. Hey James, try
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
We don't even know what the cell looked like. Rossi did not show it. All
we saw was a large machine and inside was another box with some fins. Did
I miss something?
Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect
you knew
We don't even know what the cell looked like. Rossi did not show it. All
we saw was a large machine and inside was another box with some fins. Did
I miss something?
Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect
you knew that. Please do not play games -- if
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect
you knew that. Please do not play games -- if you did know that, do not
pretend you did not.
I don't think so. What I read was that the finned box was another heat
exchanger
If it was the cell, isn't it much larger than previous cells? A factor
of three or more larger?
No, about the same. Plus there are three cells in this one. There is about
the same amount of active Ni catalyst. That is the only meaningful ratio.
The mass or volume of other stuff such as
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
That's completely wrong-- both sides of it. If PF are correct, that does
not mean that Rossi's entirely different claim is correct.
I do not know anyone else who says it is entirely different. When
many experiments in different laboratories all show
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me see if I understand. You're making claims about the amount of
catalyst present in the cells? Isn't this a bit like counting the angels
on the head of a pin?
Except that angels do not obey Archimedes' law and they are invisible.
Far as I
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed?
I can't ban anyone.
Then that ends that discussion.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was
poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before.
What do you mean by that? The power was 8
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Right, that's what I meant. It is the part labeled Reactor in Higgins'
diagram, which is not to scale:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png
That device is where the power leads
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 12:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
His
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
When many experiments in different laboratories all show anomalous heat
from metal hydrides, with Pd, Ni and Ti, most people say they are mutually
supportive. That is why replications are considered valuable. The
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me see if I understand. You're making claims about the amount of
catalyst present in the cells? Isn't this a bit like counting the angels
on the head of a pin?
Except
At 07:31 AM 11/15/2011, James Bowery wrote:
The pseudoskeptics continually
assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims
has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to
their claims. This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian
law of
save your fingers too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zE1LbC4Fvs
harry
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
A lot of the keyboard banging could be avoided if folks would simply preface
their comments with 3 attributes:
Business vs Science viewpoint
On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote:
The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those
who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether
Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This
rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law
On 11-11-15 11:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi claims way more power and uses different materials.
No, he does not claim way more power. Adjusting for the mass of
reactant it is about the same as Fleischmann and Pons
On 11-11-15 12:10 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of
the fluid, so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant.
The much lower (claimed) overall power density coincides with the
first demonstration that was not supposed to
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On 11-11-15 12:10 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of the
fluid, so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant. The much
lower (claimed) overall
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
No, he does not claim way more power. Adjusting for the mass of reactant
it is about the same as Fleischmann and Pons boiling experiments.
Wait ... Does this mean that the Saturn V didn't actually produce 'way
more power than my Subaru's 4 cylinder
-He can use more reactant because he has better control.
It's just a niggle but I don't think, other than from what Rossi says, we
have any sure understanding of how he even purports to control the device.
While we're on that subject, why is a safety heater needed in a highly
exothermic
On 11-11-15 05:05 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
-He can use more reactant because he has better control.
It's just a niggle but I don't think, other than from what Rossi says,
we have any sure understanding of how he even purports to control the
device.
As far as I know, Rossi has never said
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
As far as I know, Rossi has never said how he controls the device.
I do not recall that he has ever described this. A lot of people think it
is by heating up the powder. That does not make a lot of sense to me.
He's said -- or implied -- that he
Mary Yugo wrote:
Why was Rossi tweaking the heat in mid experiment during the session
dissected by Krivit in which Rossi peers nervously about and says
stable, stable? How does a safety heater quench the reaction? I
bet if you ask Rossi, he will tell you (in my opinion without reason)
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come now. You know perfectly well there is a good reason for not
telling people this sort of thing. This information is worth a trillion
dollars. If he has not filed a patent application, and he goes around
telling
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no doubt he has control over it.
Wrong. I doubt he has control over it, other than the obvious input current
to heat it up, and maybe start some kind of reaction, and cooling water to
cool it down, and maybe
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh come now. You know perfectly well there is a good reason for not
telling people this sort of thing. This information is worth a trillion
dollars.
The secret to producing cold fusion is worth a lot. That he claims
On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:17, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Many things about Rossi make no sense. He is not a predictable person, and
not easy to understand. His motivations are obscure. He is complicated. His
business practices seem risky and ineffective to me. He does many
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
If I knew something worth a vast fortune, I'd consult with the best
possible people about how to protect it. I'd pay them well and do what they
said to.
How do you know Rossi is not doing that? He has hired top experts at NI to
design his control
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
If I knew something worth a vast fortune, I'd consult with the best
possible people about how to protect it. I'd pay them well and do what they
said to.
How do you know Rossi
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
So you think experts on intellectual property protection told Rossi to
give 12 or more poorly controlled and calibrated demonstrations more or
less in public, not to get a single independent test . . .
They would not advise him about this. It is not any
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
... but all of his choices seem risky. ...
But that's the thing. They are not. Performing a completely thorough
test, as Rossi was advised to do, is not risky even in public. Certainly
it is not as risky as a sale.
Mary, thanks for
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/12/swedish-public-radio-turns-spotlight-on-lewan-and-ny-teknik/#comments
You've already describe the possibilites of Rossi taking substantial
investments with iron clad nondisclosure agreements...
Am 16.11.2011 02:57, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
If I knew something worth a vast fortune, I'd consult with the
best possible people about how to protect it. I'd pay them well
and do what they said to.
How do you know Rossi
47 matches
Mail list logo
