*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin,
Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your
work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking.
[mg]
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin,
Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your
work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking.
[mg]
On Tue, May 21, 2013
, 2013 4:28 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin,
Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should
your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking.
[mg]
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol
Hi,
I think we should take Mark's request seriously and avoid posting copyrighted
material to this list. It is not difficult to post links to articles of
interest. By using links instead of the full text, the authors get credit for
page hits from their sponsors and Vortex-L stays out of
I agree with Mark, I think he is listening to the minds on Vortex and
interacting and does not deserve to have his work just copied and pasted on
the Internet. In addition to the legal aspects , he certainly is backed by
a media organization which can help further the cause of LENR over time.
At
My responses are designated by 3 asterisks***.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Vortex-L is an educational organization.
Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because
needs to grow some ethics.
Andrew
- Original Message -
*From:* Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin,
Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin,
Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should
your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking.
[mg]
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin
Then why do you engage in the debate?As I've stated, this is an
educational organization, so at the very least we are all getting educated
on Fair Use Copyright law. We're also getting exposure to Fair Use
Policies as enforced by some corporations, which are not really in line
with the Fair
Mark:
I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it
did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text. For
posting the pictures, I apologize. Hopefully, Bill removes the article
and this incident just goes off into the sunset.
The attribution and
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it
did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text.
Only the text is also a violation. You should apologize. It will go off
into the sunset faster if you would
It is not a violation of the fair use law. If it were, basically every
professor I had in college would be liable for copyright violation.
Think of the money that these companies could get by just intimidating the
entire educational establishment. And why don't these companies do it,
when there
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not a violation of the fair use law. If it were, basically every
professor I had in college would be liable for copyright violation. . . .
Yo, Kevin:
First rule of holes. When you in one, stop digging.
- Jed
: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Mark:
I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it did
include pictures. That was not my
want to do that!
;-)
** **
-Mark Iverson
** **
*From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:36 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
** **
Mark:
I just
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
** **
Mark:
I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it
did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text. For
posting the pictures, I apologize
Mark,
Bill does not monitor this list regularly and the email address you
used might not get his attention. I have posted to him via a
different address. Please standby until he has a chance to respond.
This list has benefited you in the past. I suspect your gain exceeds your loss.
On Tue,
Terry,
Thanks. The issue has become a moot point and Bill needn't bother.
[mg]
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark,
Bill does not monitor this list regularly and the email address you
used might not get his attention. I have posted to him via a
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Terry,
Thanks. The issue has become a moot point and Bill needn't bother.
I really don't care what you do to the offender; but, injuring this
list is not in your best interest. After all, didn't you get the
original story
Thanks Harry for supporting the behavior needed to keep the bar open!
;-)
Cheers!
-M
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
In principle I side
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Shutting down this forum would be like closing the bar in the Dime Box
Saloon… and you don’t want to do that!
An oil company could shut us down quite quickly with a series of cease and
desist letters and threats of
I said it was a moot point [1] ... and I have no interest in injuring the
list. And, nope, I didn't get the news of the report here. All the same, I
value this list and wouldn't want to see it interfered with which is why I
asked Kevin and Bill to handle it without me getting Forbes' involved.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
I said it was a moot point [1]
Thanks for the clarification. Your comment struck me as ominous,
hence my response.
Personally, I prefer http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
Warm regards,
Terry
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Here you've used average emissivity. I think a rock-bottom lower bound (or
something along those lines) would use ε=1. I do not readily see a way to
extract such a calculation for the March 2013 run from the data presented
in the paper.
I guess you
I wrote:
Another thing I forgot to mention is that they ignore heat from the ends
of the cylinder and from the large flange. I'll bet those two would add
~100 W.
Okay, unaccounted for losses during the calibration at 810 W were 58 W. Not
~100 W. The calibration was stepped up through
posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere...
Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The
World Will Change After All
31 comments, 0 called-out
OK Peter, let's explore the dynamic creation process you suggest.
First, a condition must be present that allows the NAE to form by
release of Gibbs energy. If this condition exists, than it will not
decompose under the same condition. The condition must change before
the NAE can
Kevin,
Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under
the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a
public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be
less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this
Mark:
Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Kevin,
Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under
the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list
PopSci isn't impressed :
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says
..
The paper, which is not peer-reviewed, leaves out crucial details, for example
referring to unknown additives instead of specifying what chemicals actually
Kevin,
Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your
work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking.
[mg]
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Mark:
Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your
I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Mark Gibbs
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin,
Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: May 20, 2013 9:11:57 AM MDT
To: c...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered.
1.
Dear Ed,
Your arguments here have great success, our dear Mary Yugo is using
them in her comments for annihilating this report.
I think you as NAE expert are focusing on the second idea.
1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes but
how great must be these changes in
You have to admire the bravery of the scientists that ran these tests and
put out this paper. The enemies of the ideas that they purport to verify
will try to destroy them.
How much faith that one puts in a test is usually determined by the faith
that one has in the people who ran the test.
If a
No matter what is said, Yugo and others will distort the comments to
agree with their belief. If we accept Rossi, we are stupid and
deceived. If we criticize Rossi, this is used to show that Rossi is
wrong. They do not even attempt to understand what part of a claim may
be real. They
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a
thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured
temperature.
They did that. See p. 18, QUOTE:
Various dots were applied to the dummy as well. A
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes but
how great must be these changes in order to invalidate completely the
results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors are in total error? Very
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder what the second set of calculations would look like with an
assumption of ε=1 -- since the COP was only ~2, perhaps it would get
uncomfortably close to 1 with full emissivity?
First of all, the COP wasn't ~2 it was ~2.6 +/- 0.5, with the
Dear Ed,
You got the idea, NAE/active sites are NOT stable, they come, work or not
and go, and come again incessantly. A dynamic vision, not a static one is
necessary.
Peter
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
No matter what is said, Yugo and others
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You can do that from the numbers in Table 8. With average emissivity,
radiation is 460 W and convection is 282. Throw out convection completely
(ignore it; pretend it did not happen) and you get:
460 W / 283 W = COP of
Mark Gibbs has an article up :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/
(Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
42 matches
Mail list logo
