At 04:00 PM 12/16/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
What's the payoff? ...That Steorn is really good at manipulating PR?
...That they they can pull a fast one on everyone? There seems to be
an equally unproven assumption that if Steorn can pull it off that
future prospective clients
At 12:11 AM 12/17/2009, William Beaty wrote:
7. It's NOT the company's number one goal to prove that the invention is
real. The scam company seems to have no goal besides creating an aura of
attractive secrets: secrets which will only be revealed to an in-group
of superior blue-blooded
At 12:23 AM 12/17/2009, you wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
They are charging for getting a look at the technology, and, I'm
sure, this comes with heavy NDAs,
Hey. Is charging to get a look at technology a dead givaway for an FE
con game? In other words, what other
At 09:58 AM 12/17/2009, you wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
I'm sure Shanahan is finding immeasurable entertainment in these
messages. Particularly your comment about certified fruitcake.
It is the season, though, isn't it?
Absolutely! And for the record, I'm crazy about fruitcake,
especially
At 10:10 PM 12/17/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Abd remarks,
[...]
What I do claim is that the Steorn situation bears very strong marks
of being a con, a fairly sophisticated one, where they are
deliberately setting up demonstrations with obvious flaws, which they
can then
At 11:55 AM 12/18/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Well, as Deep Throat sed: Follow the money.
What's the payoff.
Smuggling donkeys.
While this scam is running, do you have any idea what salaries Steorn
executives are drawing? Do you know if any payments are being made to
At 11:20 AM 12/18/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
From Stephen Lawrence
... But he's [MADOFF] **NOT** held up as an example of a
successful con artist, because he (a) had no exit strategy, ...
Ok, then then what's Steorn's exit strategy?
I certainly don't know for sure. Depends
At 12:06 PM 12/18/2009, Mauro Lacy wrote:
You maintain this business as long as you can, and when things are
starting to get murky(really murky) and profits are falling, you
suddenly fire all your employeess, close offices, and disappear in your
private jet, to have a well deserved recess in
At 03:42 PM 12/18/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
However, bilked may not be it. Rather, he set up a speculative
investment opportunity for people, under this particular theory:
now that you know we don't actually have anything yet -- we might
find the magic wand waving
At 03:46 PM 12/18/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Not the end of the ad, but the end of the
sequence of damning quotes. But the sequence of quotes takes up
most of the ad, and I found the inclusion of the quote from their
own jury as the last one in the sequence more
At 04:46 PM 12/18/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
-- I think it's unlikely that they're cash positive right now, if we
leave cash flow from stock sales off the balance sheet. But, that
doesn't really matter much; with repeated rounds of financing,
companies can go for years in a
At 05:43 PM 12/18/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Mongo want to see a light bulb real soon.
No light bulb soon, Mongo send candygram to Sean.
Light bulb! Light bulb! Light bulb!
Steorn response simple: light bulb. Lights up. What does that mean?
Or not. Whatever they think will
At 05:27 PM 12/18/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 12/18/2009 02:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 11:02 PM 12/17/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Sounds good. But magicians don't usually start by working to convince
everyone that they are incompetent liars. That's a label nobody wants
http://www.steorn.com/
The al-Jazeera ad is there under the Watch the advert button.
And Sean describes the technology, sort of, (absolutely no critical
details, and the bottom line is, trust us). Very slick.
They are claiming that the battery is merely an energy reservoir.
That the
The error message is from the Captcha Turing test. I ran into that
too. I may have used the back button? I'm not sure.
At 07:17 PM 12/19/2009, you wrote:
I deleted the Richard Feynman quote and the blog entry was sent
forward for censoring. It will be interesting to see if my one
sentence
At 10:56 PM 12/19/2009, you wrote:
A Ponzi scheme is specifically a scheme for allowing *investors* to
make money even though the company has no source of income. It's
the lure of assured high return on the money which pulls in the
investors. In particular, investors who pull out before a
At 07:39 AM 12/20/2009, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:
Electrical engineers should immediately understand the implications of
toroid and no back EMF.
I'd think so. Now, what would you say about the rebuttal video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF0PdJn984s
At 10:03 AM 12/20/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 12/20/2009 12:22 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:56 PM 12/19/2009, you wrote:
A Ponzi scheme is specifically a scheme for allowing *investors* to
make money even though the company has no source of income. It's the
lure of assured high
At 10:10 AM 12/20/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 12/19/2009 06:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Further, we know that they can produce something more interesting. I
don't think Hoyt is lying. Do you?
No, Hoyt's not lying. But Hoyt has been lied to and has apparently
been taken
At 05:19 PM 12/22/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:29:37 -0500:
Some of the alphas,
statistically, would be hot enough to induce secondary reactions as
well. (Which comes first, the photon emissions or the fission?)
[snip]
Be8 has
I see that Jan Marwan is scheduled with a symposium on New Energy
Technologies at the ACS meeting in San Francisco in March. Any clues?
At 09:02 PM 12/23/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Esa,
Both vimeo videos came through clean for me. Looks great. Iphone... Good!
If you get the chance, could you personally ask someone like
Tachoman why Steorn didn't design the ORBO demo device around a high
functioning
At 10:51 PM 12/23/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
As I understand it, they are not claiming that the motor being
demonstrated is OU in the sense of more *mechanical* energy out than
electrical energy in.
Yes. The electrical energy is entirely being dissipated as heat, they
claim, it is not
One thing should be kept in mind. Steorn claims that it noticed an
anomaly. It has never described the exact nature of the anomaly, not publicly.
Thus much of the criticism is simply an assertion that an anomaly is
impossible. Steorn quite directly confronts this, with a truth:
anomalies are
Original subject was Re: [Vo]:Krivit Elsevier Encyclopedia Articles Publish
At 06:08 PM 12/24/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
On 23 March 1989, electrochemists M.
Fleischmann and S. Pons claimed in a press
conference at the University of Utah that they
had achieved nuclear
At 06:24 PM 12/25/2009, Steven Krivit wrote:
Fleischmann, M., et al., Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion
of Deuterium, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 261,
Issue 2, Part 1, p. 301-308 (April 10, 1989) and errata in Vol. 263,
p. 187-188, (1989)
In view of the very high
At 08:24 PM 12/25/2009, you wrote:
I do not want to make too big a deal about this, by the way. I think
thermonuclear is technically inaccurate in this context but
broadly speaking, taken to mean conventional, known, plasma fusion
reactions then Steve is right. This hypothesis has dogged the
At 06:00 AM 12/28/2009, William Beaty wrote:
Rather than focusing on some perhaps-unexpected measurement, just
close the loop. Ditch the battery. Make a perpetual wheel. Close the loop.
If it's real, then closing the loop should be easy. If it's an artifact
which misleads
At 08:58 PM 12/29/2009, William Beaty wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But there is the tantalizing middle. They find that they almost
close the loop.
You're giving them the benefit of the doubt. Count how many times
you have to do that! It's very telling
At 12:14 PM 12/30/2009, Craig Haynie wrote:
Here are two more replications:
The first link shows no apparent current increase as the speed of the
rotor picks up, and tends to really display the effect that is
perplexing all of these people.
At 12:15 PM 12/30/2009, Harry Veeder wrote:
Here is the same unit turned by hand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xungPOZtIo
Setting aside the issue of over unity or free energy, what does the
'zero' meter reading mean ? a violation lenz law? a faulty meter? or
meter leads located at the wrong
At 01:13 PM 12/30/2009, Craig Haynie wrote:
Setting aside the issue of over unity or free energy, what does
the 'zero' meter reading mean ? a violation lenz law? a faulty
meter? or meter leads located at the wrong place?
Are you implying that the amp meter is not connected correctly? If so,
Craig, I don't think you get that the demonstrations show almost
nothing, except that the second video you pointed to conclusively
refutes the claim of no back-EMF, and quite visually, with the
blinking of that neon bulb, which, as I recall, requires about 65
volts to initiate, the bulb then
At 04:37 PM 12/30/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 12/30/2009 03:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 12:14 PM 12/30/2009, Craig Haynie wrote:
Here are two more replications:
The first link shows no apparent current increase as the speed of the
rotor picks up, and tends to really
At 10:06 AM 1/8/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
For my comment here:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/qa-googles-green-energy-czar/http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/qa-googles-green-energy-czar/
This has got to be against journalistic ethics at some level.
Are you a
At 08:54 PM 1/8/2010, Mike Carrell wrote:
Meanwhile Mills announced to as investment group expectations of a
working prototype this year with scale-up to the megawatt powr
plants next year. At Rowan university, members of the chemistry
faculty, using commercially available chemicals, were able
At 04:15 PM 1/8/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I don't necessarily agree that cold fusion is economically viable,
it's possible that huge sums could be spent with no commercial
result, but at this point, huge sums aren't needed; rather what is
needed is what Kowalski
At 12:34 PM 1/10/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Reasonable, I'd say, if the 10W experiment looked like it had a
prayer of being scalable.
10 W would already be a significant scale up, by a factor of ~10. If
it worked I am sure any larger size would work. Also, I know
At 05:45 PM 1/13/2010, Terry Blanton wrote:
Here is 1 of 5 youtube vids:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/0/bzcZDr1AcEU
The set of videos is too long for me to watch now. But my immediate impression.
The demonstrations are technically far more complex, they *look* much
better.
At 03:07 AM 1/14/2010, Esa Ruoho wrote:
At 05:45 PM 1/13/2010, Terry Blanton . He claims that the energy
output is greater than the input, but he says that again and again
without showing a measurement of this. Next week, he says.
So, Abd, do you even know what happens next week? They open it
At 03:11 AM 1/14/2010, Esa Ruoho wrote:
On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/0/bzcZDr1AcEUhttp://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/0/bzcZDr1AcEU
The set of videos is too long
At 01:03 PM 1/14/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Nevertheless, you state at the very beginning that you didn't have
enough time to watch the show in its entirety. Let me reiterate: It is
in fact the first thing you tell your readers.
While, in a sense, you are taking advantage of
At 03:02 PM 1/14/2010, Terry Blanton wrote:
Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work,
eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack
of understanding of this fact.
This is quite the response that Steorn wants from people who realize
the
At 03:38 PM 1/14/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
In politics, business and consulting, many people make a good living
by obfuscation and sewing confusion.
I like that. Sewing. They stitch it together rather than tossing
seeds in the ground.
Of course Sean may be right. In a sense. But wrong if we take No
back EMF as an absolute, and wrong in the implications.
I don't think I've seen how the Orbo motor allegedly works stated clearly.
The drive current doesn't accelerate the rotor directly, or, more
accurately perhaps, it doesn't
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 10:06:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
wrote:
OK, folks, we're all talking about it but nobody's quite said it.
This
apparently novel motor is actually just a new manifestation of a very
old concept.
The Orbo, as described, is a perpetual
At 12:47 PM 1/17/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Gosh, something happened and the calorimetry company had to
withdraw. Sorry, folks.
This has not actually happened. Please identify statements such as
this as hypothetical or cynical, to avoid confusion. (Seriously.)
I
At 02:46 PM 1/17/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
How do you know? With regular bearings it may require more energy
then the system can
generate.
Isn't that my point? They are drawing relatively high power from the
battery
At 12:05 AM 1/19/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
I noticed on the Steorn forum there is talk of a punch line that
Steorn will give at the end of the month. Perhaps the test you describe is it.
I rather doubt it. If they've done this and they have the data and it
shows significant excess energy,
At 07:00 PM 1/20/2010, you wrote:
Don't forget the Al Jazeera ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcNwc-GhzIs
50 sec into it.
Thanks for the reminder. They quote their own hand-picked jury's
statement that there Orbo hasn't shown evidence of energy
production. And immediately after that,
At 01:36 PM 1/21/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:
This premise assumes that Stoern BELIEVES their ORBO is valid
technology... that Steorn just needs a few of those big spending
corporate entities to buy a cheap (for them) licenses and subsequently
work out a few minor pesky bugs!
Well not
At 03:07 PM 1/21/2010, Jones Beene wrote:
When deuterium is loaded in an atomic ratio of 1:1 within a metal, it must
be in molecular form, and seldom atomic form, as was once thought (and
taught) since the molecule is so much smaller than the atom. Given what has
gone on in LENR over the years,
At 04:06 PM 1/21/2010, Jones Beene wrote:
The natural abundance of D in the oceans of
Earth of approximately one atom in 6,500 of
hydrogen (~154 ppm) or four times lower than
Jupiter. What happened to the rest of it, if it
was initially the same as Jupiter?
Fascinating question based on an
At 03:02 PM 1/21/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Peatbog sez:
The cost is 419 euros per year. Here are the terms:
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/licensing/
Thanks for the clarification. The initiation fee is certainly way
too steep for my tastes! Interesting that it's an annual fee.
At 03:03 PM 1/21/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Abd sez:
...
Get this: lying, as such, is not illegal. Most
subscribers to this list are really space aliens, and
I'm not yet revealing my secret knowledge, because I
must protect my sources. However, I need money, so if
you want
At 02:10 PM 1/24/2010, Jones Beene wrote:
As for the claim of OU heating from an electric motor - which has been
around for years - google Szabo EBM. Here is a video which makes a clearer
claim for OU than anything coming from Steorn, yet AFIK they have not been
successful:
At 12:23 PM 1/25/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Big splashy advert screens are being displayed at steorn.com
Sounds like they intend to deliver the final punch line this coming
Saturday, Jan 30
we shall see...
Yup. Unless all their bearings freeze up, the building mysteriously
At 01:09 PM 1/25/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
What we absolutely will *not* see:
-- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of
skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever.
This includes motors with no external power supply, and motors driven
At 03:16 PM 1/25/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/25/2010 03:08 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping
push along space travel?
http://www.nss.org/
Well, I was Administrator of the L-5 Society, over thirty years ago,
which
At 04:28 PM 1/25/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/25/2010 04:09 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Well, I was Administrator of the L-5 Society, over thirty years ago,
That is seriously cool!
Thanks. I thought so myself. I've done some other cool things, too!
Right now I'm working
At 07:45 PM 1/25/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
What we absolutely will *not* see:
-- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of
skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever.
At 08:50 AM 1/26/2010, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2010/01/25/spam-is-solved-we-can-all-go-home-now.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/ylj42d5
I would love some comments on this article.
Okay, here goes!
The article describes an interesting
At 10:35 AM 1/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
There was a well publicized comparison made of Britannica versus
Wikipedia a few years ago. Conclusion:
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as
Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world
around us,
At 06:00 PM 1/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I guess I would have to say that despite its many faults, the
Wikipedia article is better.
[than the Britannica article]. Yes. The Britannica is depending on
old information that was never really accurate, but it's not
surprising that this is what
At 06:41 PM 1/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
It's really an aspect of the problem of scale. Those who could do
something about it are overwhelmed and must make snap judgments, so
when an issue is complex, really bad decisions are made.
This is true
At 05:46 PM 1/30/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/
Krivit says:
Bottom line, there is something real, no doubt. Nuclear, absolutely.
Potential for energy, yes. But fusion? I can't know for sure, but at
this time, I highly doubt it.
So if it's nuclear
, perhaps. And on and on.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
http://lomaxdesign.com/coldfusion
At 08:12 PM 1/30/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 03:33 PM 1/30/2010, Steven Krivit wrote:
NET 34 is out. Read it carefully.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/
Feathers will be ruffled; yes, I know.
You don't know half of it, Steve.
Your comments, questions and critique, as always
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/345revisions.shtml
We have learned, through a better understanding
of their paper, that the authors did not perform
calorimetry. Rather, they used the helium
measurements to back-calculate the excess heat
they would have expected from the amount of
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/343inexplicableclaims.shtml
This is a discussion of the Violante
presentation,
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2004/ICCF11/pres/64-Violante.pdf
Here, I will comment on the Krivit report,
pointing out how he has misunderstood and/or
At 08:28 PM 2/6/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
Based on this google translation it seems the
Italian Committee Against the Claims of the
Paranormal is seeking to discredit Rossi et al.
At 09:27 PM 2/6/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
I am Rich Murray, rmfor...@gmail.com , and have suggested Feb. 5 and 6
that the Rossi device may have internal leaks that cause the electric
heater to short out to the output water, electrolyzing water into
hydrogen and oxygen in the cell and messing up
At 08:58 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Celani's description of the demo was more critical than his
discussion with me, yesterday. He was quite upset that they did not
let him make nuclear measurements, and I suspect that has colored
his thinking. Rossi told him we can't let you take a gamma
At 08:00 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Rich Murray mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater
electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2
that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni
At 08:43 AM 2/7/2011, Ron Kita wrote:
Greetings Vortex,
I still cannot believe that Clorox acquired Burts Bees Wax for
925 million. I tried to find some lower numbers, none were found.
Will keep looking..it is so incredible.
At 12:09 PM 2/7/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in
this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could
share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who
can be trusted with secrets.
There is no
I posted a comment wondering why Krivit hasn't mentioned the Storms
review, published in Naturwissenschaften last October, Status of
cold fusion (2010), and hasn't listed the paper on his Recent papers
page, in spite of it being, arguably, the most significant paper
published in the field in
At 02:34 PM 2/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:
Abd...
I think you haven't been following this as closely as the active
contributors... Perhaps your time
is limited and you have not been able to read all the postings...
What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My
suspicion is, he
At 02:08 PM 2/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:
Abd:
You stated:
Right now, the Rossi device is a Black Box, with two apparent inputs:
electrical power, as a supposedly measured level, and water,
Did you forget the hydrogen? At least I would consider it an input
since it is not entirely
contained
At 02:22 PM 2/7/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Recall the tragic PR mess that transpired when scientists (most of
them physicists) in their initial curiosity attempted to independently
replicate a chemistry experiment, for which most had little experience
in executing, the Pons
At 02:37 PM 2/7/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/07/2011 02:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'm not sure how he took my criticism, since I have nothing invested
in any particular theory
As far as I can tell he didn't have the patience to understand your
criticism. You used too
At 02:52 PM 2/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:
Abd:
You really need to be more careful with your choice of words...
There is a staged demonstration, under the control of Rossi, with
experimental details
concealed...
No, there were at least two tests done with the same seasoned
university
Consider a well-insulated box. It contains a reservoir holding a
substance with high specific heat and high melting point. Into the
reservoir, and through a tube into the box, may flow water, and steam
may escape. Internal controls may regulate flow. Hot air may be used
to initially heat the
At 12:34 PM 2/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It would be a little tricky to have something like this produce the
output performance of the Rossi device. You would have to have a
secret remote control that vectors most of the cooling water around
the heat source at first, and then gradually
At 11:12 PM 2/18/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Congratulations on your Sinclair project. I started on a TRS-80.
Heh! Well, *I* -- the word is drawn out -- started on an Altair 8800.
Pthtpthhh!
At 10:17 PM 2/18/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
does classical mechanics always fail to predict or retrodict for 3 or
more Newtonian gravity bodies? Rich Murray 2011.02.18
I think there is a misconception here. There isn't any true two-body
or three-body problem because there are far, far more than
At 01:51 AM 2/21/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/21/rothwell-makes-pre-emptive-strike-against-new-lenr-textbook/
http://tinyurl.com/4s3xhjt
Right there, in a nutshell, is perfect evidence
as to Krivit's effective demise as a reporter on LENR.
This leads
Subject was Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission
from Rossi device
At 04:12 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
Not true. I have described what it would take to convince me (and so
has Jed Rothwell), and if cold fusion could deliver a tiny fraction
of what has been promised
At 09:50 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Ah. It seems Wiley has not agreed to publish this textbook. That is relief!
I tried to ask Krivit about this textbook, but as I said, he refused
to talk to me. He acted as if I was not there. When I tapped him on
the shoulder he walked away. An
At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
So I'm going to ask, as to cold fusion in general, what has been
promised and what do promises have to do with science?
A new energy source
At 10:38 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This was all a tempest in a teapot! Good thing. I sent a message to
the Wiley editor, pointing to Krivit's article, and apologizing for
the misunderstanding.
Regarding Abd's comments, several potential authors told me that
Krivit pulled this stunt
At 10:38 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This was all a tempest in a teapot! Good thing. I sent a message to
the Wiley editor, pointing to Krivit's article, and apologizing for
the misunderstanding.
Your letter may have done good, pointing out to Wiley that there
could be problems with
At 10:52 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
This discussion has been about the Rossi work, which is based on a
secret process, and which is inadequately confirmed . . .
I think the confirmation is better than most
At 12:47 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude has added that he is not convinced that nuclear reactions in
cold fusion experiments have produced measurable heat. From my
point of view
At 03:28 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But Rossi is not a clear confirmation of any prior work, since we
don't know what's inside.
Sure he is. This is a confirmation of Piantelli and Focardi, and
Mills for that matter. We know approximately what is inside
At 01:41 PM 2/21/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I don't know about Joshua, but a report of an experiment with no details
given sure doesn't convince *me*, but maybe that makes me a pathological
skeptic, too, eh?
Of course not. That was hyperbole on Jed's part. He might be right,
if Joshua
At 03:01 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma
At 03:50 PM 2/21/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:40:47 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
But the result that is known is
that helium is produced, and the observed energy
supports the conclusion that the primary fuel is
deuterium. unknown nuclear
At 03:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
I've seen what they write. Practically every review is preoccupied
with defending the reality of the field. I know you've read Storms'
abstract to his latest review, because you are acknowledged in the
paper. It's 2010, and most of it reiterates the
901 - 1000 of 1743 matches
Mail list logo
