19:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 19:43:27 -0800
Message-ID:
cae9doe8bxms34egzbsaqa+jo0dn3-qoqlepcnntkdtdptra...@mail.gmail.com
Subject: subscribe
From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
Hello Vorts:
See below for confirmation from YE Kim that the formation of a BEC at room
temperature gives his LENR theory a leg up.
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
1:22 PM (4 hours ago)
to yekim, ayandas, pkb
Hello Dr. Kim. I left you a voicemail regarding this. Does the formation
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enctx=mailanswer=1311182
eskimo.com
11:45 AM (15 hours ago)
to vortex-l
Edmund Storms https://plus.google.com/u/0/112904824327993917962?prsrc=4
writes:
Yes, but all of these processes you describe are done
the
process works.
Ed
On Feb 10, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enctx=mailanswer=1311182
eskimo.com
11:45 AM (15 hours ago)
to vortex-l
Edmund Storms https://plus.google.com/u/0
cleaner than
so-called clean coal. Of course, it comes with the assumption that normal
LENR does not permit a high enough COP when scaled-up to megawatts - to
ever
become commercially viable.
Jones
From: Kevin O'Malley
Yes, but all of these processes you
struggle to
understand how H in a metal creates excess heat.
Best Regards,
Chuck
s
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello Vorts:
See below for confirmation from YE Kim that the formation of a BEC at
room temperature gives his LENR theory
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation.
***There have been some observances of radiation. Not very much, but
some.
Hot fusion produces a mixture of energetic fragments of He.These
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
On Feb 10, 2013, at 8:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Storms: NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without
radiation
Statement from George Miley
February 10, 2013
By admin http://www.e-catworld.com/author/admin/
inShare javascript:void(0);0
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/02/statement-from-george-miley/
*I thought I would make a separate post of a comment just received from
George Miley addressed to us here at
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
In the case of cold fusion, the process does not produce energetic products
and the final product is an intact helium nucleus. Nevertheless, the
nuclear energy appears as heat. Of course, radiation is produced and some
is
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Kevin, I think that what Dr. Storms is stating about the dangerous
radiation emission is valid. In your scenario, the balloon is surrounded
by many others that absorb the high energy emissions. How does it account
for
Dr. Storms: A short hand approach has to be used because neither one of us
has the time to explain everything in detail.
***Can you please clarify whether you are using some kind of shorthand
approach on the Nanocavities thread? Because formation of BECs using
lasers to COOL the environment
I know how lasers can be used to cool. That is not how lasers are used when
they are applied to cold fusion.
***Incorrect. KP Sinha said directly that lasers were used to cool in his
LENR experiment theory.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Kevin, having given this more thought, if you want to apply the BEC
concept to the hydroton that I propose is the active structure in LENR,
I'm listening. We all agree that a method must be found to release
So, you accept reality as Sinha describes it. That simplifies out
discussion because now we only need to learn from Sinha.
So, as usual, the place to start is Jed's website:
Excess Heat Triggering by 532 nm Laser in a D/Pd Gas Loading System
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TianJexcessheatb.pdf
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have a question about the laser cooling and what magic it performs as
related to the BEC. If you are considering the cooling as being a
necessary factor that must be present before the BEC can form,
***Well, yes,
Feedback from someone on Free Republic who met Chauvin:
I met Chauvin at the E-Cat conference in Zurich last September. I didn’t
know he worked for Logitech, but there seems to be some confusion here:
he’s not the Logitech founder, he’s just a former employee. The founder may
be putting some
I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very compelling.
***I think when LENR is finally figured out, it will be various elements of
several theories that form together the final puzzle.
Note that Sinha hints strongly that Mills’s Hydrino theory might be close.
I think when
This is beyond the melting point of most metals except tungsten and its
mates.
Plexcitons could make LENR go.
Cheers: Axil
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very
compelling.
***I think when
We all have our favorite theories. Storms finds it significant that the
reactions seem to take place on the surface or near it. The cracks seem
significant. On this thread, it seems like hairs can possibly trigger a
BEC. And the hairs are similar to cracks in how they snag electrons.
Maybe
In the balloon analogy, all the balloons will be drawn to the surface just
under the top of the particle’s bulk.
***How is that? In the balloon analogy, the tinker toys represent the
palladium lattice and the balloons represent Hydrogen atoms. There hasn't
been indication that hydrogen atoms
will be attracted to the positive nucleus as
happens in cooper pair production because of the negative permeability
coefficient of the particle’s surface charge ( the Shukla-Eliasson effect).
Cheers: Axil
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
In the balloon
Here's an interesting article along these lines of discussion.
Trolls win: Rude blog comments dim the allure of science online February
14, 2013
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-trolls-rude-blog-comments-dim.html
The trolls are winning. Pick a story about some aspect of science, any
story, scroll
So ... we all look forward to when your theory allows the effect to be
replicated at will. When will that be? It seems that the closest person
to reach this goal is Hagelstein who says he will send out NANOR samples to
be replicated, or maybe Celani.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Edmund
Dr. Storms, would you be able to identify the difference between a NAE
sample and a failing sample? If so, you could ask researchers to send you
samples of both failures and successes and maybe you can find the signature
that leads to replication at will. That would make you the most valuable
The mechanism must logically explain how He4, tritium, and transmutation
are produced without energetic radiation being detected.
***A couple of years back I thought EN Tsyganov was onto something.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Cold%20nuclear%20fusion.pdf
4. THE PROBLEM OF
Axil:
That article is exceedingly difficult to read. It's 2 pages embedded into
969 pages of PDF and page 120 is blank. For the sake of others, so they do
not have to try 6 times to load the page, I have copied what I could, but
it does not contain page 120... because it is blank.
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a
testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great
invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed.
***There currently is no accepted theory of gravity.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
People seem to be missing the essential issue here. A theory gives
information about a process or phenomenon that is required to make it
happen on demand.
***Has your theory brought LENR to this point?
The Wright
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Yes Eric, occasionally a very few neutrons and energetic particles are
detected. These are at least 10 orders of magnitude below the main effect,
hence are not part of the LENR process.
***How do you know they are not
How about applying Occham's Razor? If these fusion events were happening
on the surface at 10^11 times/sec, then there would likely -- likely, as in
applying INDUCTIVE reasoning-- be far more radiation emitted because it
would not be absorbed by the lattice. It seems that the absorption by the
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something about
how radiation and LENR behave.
***Perhaps you should take it up with the owners of this list. I got an A
in calculus-based Nuclear Physics when
You take yourself awfully serious Jed
I don't. I just happen to know a great deal about the Wright brothers.
That plus a whole bunch of other stuff. That is an ASTOUNDING
accomplishment. Imagine understanding a propeller to that extent before
anyone, anywhere in the world made a real
OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry
***I don't care about hurt feelings. You can hurt my feelings every day
next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple question.
You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to fully
answer.
***I'm not asking for it to be
First of all,
***How long did it take for you to generate a 4 point list rather than
answer a simple 40k foot inductive question?
your question was not about my theory.
***It sure as hell was. It points to one theory being more consistent
with the evidence than the other. The BEC theory
It should be noted that the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe,
by far – which is the reversible fusion of two protons into Helium-2 – such
as happens with unimaginable frequency on most stars including our sun - is
thought to produce no radiation. However, this reaction may produce
Dr Storms current theory argues that for D+D -4He the system must emit the
energy in small enough doses that
the radiation can't penetrate far enough to be detected
***Sounds like new physics to me. Is there any evidence that this
lower-level emission takes place elsewhere besides in LENR
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk
effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape
to the surface?
***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen at the
surface. Like a landslide pushing a hundred trees into a
This example is presented to you to support the point that nanowires can
concert [convert?] gamma-rays directly into heat is properly configured.
***All kinds of things convert light to heat, such as your skin when you
go out into the sunshine. But aren't gamma rays far more energetic than
basic
assume that there is
adequate evidence available at this point from the many experiments that
have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be
concerned.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
A BIG peice of nano-material is at or under 100 nanometers. This is less
than 61 microns so a nano-structure that small can convert a gamma ray to
heat because it is less than the far wavelenth of the radiation.
***Much of current semiconductor research is well under 100 nm. Why
haven't they seen
Here's the original article.
The nuclear reactor in your basement
February 19, 2013 by Bob Silberg
The nuclear reactor in your basement February 19, 2013 by Bob Silberg
Enlarge How would you like to replace your water heater with a nuclear
reactor? That's what Joseph Zawodny, a
Here's a pretty good animation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoiteXBb1mAfeature=player_embedded
About 3:40 into the animation. I found it at Superwaves's site
http://ideasorlando.com/ideas/news/ideas-creates-animation-for-new-scientific-breakthrough-featured-on-cbs-60-minutes/
When these
I wonder if anyone has ever tried using magnetic containment around a
Deuterium loaded Palladium matrix? Watching the video suggests that
Lockheed worries about escape mechanisms that need containment; if they
reduce the number of escape paths by using a Palladium matrix, that could
make the
clusters. However, unlike frozen clusters, they are stable and can be used
in air and at room temperatures.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if anyone has ever tried using magnetic containment around a
Deuterium loaded Palladium matrix? Watching
From the conclusion of the article on 2nd order processes:
The processes discussed explain the lack of the normally expected reaction
products.
***It didn't look very convincing to me. This is all it says:
In the process formerly discussed [9] if the reaction takes place in solid
material, in
Ex nihilo: Dynamical Casimir effect in metamaterial converts vacuum
fluctuations into real photons
March 8, 2013 by Stuart Mason Dambrot
Copyright © PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.1212705110 (Phys.org)
—In the strange world of quantum mechanics, the vacuum state (sometimes
referred to as the quantum
Don't know why the subject didn't show up.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Ex nihilo: Dynamical Casimir effect in metamaterial converts vacuum
fluctuations into real photons
March 8, 2013 by Stuart Mason Dambrot
Copyright © PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas
Is there any evidence which suggests this phenomenon is responsible for
LENR? It looks intriguing, but I'm not aware of how this would effect any
current theories.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote:
Predicted Atomic Collapse phenomenon observed:
Maybe PR is what we need to get LENR through the current phase of
development.
I think of the W-L theory as the Politically Correct Roundabout Theory of
LENR. They go out of their way to proclaim loudly that it's not cold
fusion.
Original article, so it can be posted elsewhere:
| 3/14/2013 @
I remember there being a paper about something like alpha bombardment of a
metal matrix generating a million times more fusion events than the same
level of plasma. But I can't find it.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
So, I have a question that
here can explain
some of the
main problems raised in [13]. (a) The mechanisms proposed here make low
energy fusion
reactions and nuclear transmutations possible. (b) The processes discussed
explain the lack
of the normally expected reaction products.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Kevin
Enhancement of fusion rates due to quantum effects in the
particles momentum distribution in nonideal media
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3482.pdf
N. J. Fisch,
1 M. G. Gladush,2 Yu. V. Petrushevich,2 Piero Quarati,3 and A. N. Starostin2
1
Department of Astrophysical Sciences,
Princeton
at 10:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Enhancement of fusion rates due to quantum effects in the
particles momentum distribution in nonideal media
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3482.pdf
N. J. Fisch,
1 M. G. Gladush,2 Yu. V. Petrushevich,2 Piero Quarati,3 and A. N.
Starostin2
Same report, cleansed of Rossi's references, for purposes of publication
elsewhere.
There has been steady progress in the world of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
(LENR), better known as Cold Fusion, in the last few months. The main
commercial players have been quiet but the open-source Martin
In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.
Jones
***This is an elegant aspect of the theory, it obeys Occham's Razor.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???
Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???
***Here's the physical model I proposed
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Conservation laws are not always conserved on the subatomic scale.
***Example?
related
1. Nonequilibrium Josephson oscillations in Bose-Einstein
*...*http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5459
2.
3. arxiv.org › cond-mat
http://arxiv.org/list/cond-mat/recentCachedhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0h9Xk0UudFEJ:arxiv.org/abs/0903.5459+cd=1hl=enct=clnkgl=us
also related
Macroscopic quantum self-trapping and Josephson oscillations of
exciton-polaritons
M. Abbarchi, A. Amo, V. G. Sala, D. D. Solnyshkov, H. Flayac, L. Ferrier,
I. Sagnes, E. Galopin, A. Lemaitre, G. Malpuech, J. Bloch
(Submitted on 21 Dec 2012)
A textbook example of quantum mechanical
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical temperature
April 10, 2013 by Lisa Zyga
Physicists created a BEC that can persist at up to 1.5 times hotter than
the critical temperature at which
In a personal correspondence, Y.E. Kim confirms that this BEC development
gives his theory yet another leg up.
Yes, high temperature BEC (HT-BEC) is possible with interacting Bosons
which is capable of forming a BEC cluster.
The arguments for requiring the very low T to form a BEC are
On a prior thread, I think it was Jones Beene who suggested that
reversible proton fusion was one of the better models for LENR.
Jones
Beenehttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Jones+Beene%22Fri,
05 Apr 2013 05:52:56
Which paper is that?
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
His math is above my pay grade, but one
detail that seems to emerge is that there could exist a deeply redundant
ground state bound at 5 keV. It is a Klein-Gordon state and seems to have
turned up
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
That the size of the claimed effect has gotten smaller ... which is
consistent with pathological science.
***Hagelstein wrote this editorial shortly after having his latest LENR
experiment run for several MONTHS in his lab.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
LENR+ is so 2011. I think the future is in LENR++ or maybe objective LENR.
Nickel and light water are certainly easier to obtain than Pd and heavy
water, but you still have to mine nickel, and refine it. LENR++ uses
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enctx=mailanswer=1311182
eskimo.com
7:48 AM (2 hours ago)
to vortex-l
Joshua, ...You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many
mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists.
***In
Thanks for the reference, Jed.
In that paper by Johnson, they quote Craven Letts. Do you think it was
this paper that National Instruments proceeds from when they reviewed the
literature and cited more than 180 replications?
D. Craven and D. Letts, “The enabling criteria of electrochemical
think so highly of this
paper ;-)
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
In that paper by Johnson, they quote Craven Letts.
Cravens and Letts is here, by the way:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat
monologues not
a dialogue
Peter
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enctx=mailanswer=1311182
eskimo.com
7:48 AM (2 hours ago)
to vortex-l
Joshua, ...You argue
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
Max Planck:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit
of sneering. There's no real
attempt to get to a working understanding. Researchers don't do things the
way you like, so you call it pathological science.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. I had no idea. Now, why didn't they just do this bit of math for the
DOE panel instead of trying to convince them with boring old scientific
evidence.
***AFAIK, it was published after the (incredibly biased) DOE Panel.
. These are labs scientists, not
journalists and homeopaths.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive
result to be 1 in 4
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And while you incorrectly deny the claimed replications of polywater, it is
quite similar.There were 450 peer-reviewed publications on polywater. Most
of those professional scientists turned out to be wrong. There were 200
A good example of the validity of Planck's observation to fit reality is
to look at how plate tectonics were initially rejected, then embraced a
generation later.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Either that, or they knew, as any intelligent person would, that no one not
already a true believer, would take such an analysis seriously.
***Oh, so the folks at National Instruments aren't intelligent? Their JOB
is to
because such progress was deemed impossible. The Wright brothers
had to publish their results in a beekeepers journal.
View shared post https://www.google.com/#
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Tritium is detected at levels far below what is necessary to explain the
claims of excess heat, and the levels vary by about 10 orders of magnitude.
***Then you acknowledge that Tritium has been detected.
This is a
...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wright brothers had to publish their results in a beekeepers journal.
No. They published in the J. Western Society of Engineers, which was a
top-notch journal. They published two papers:
Wilbur Wright, Some Aeronautical Experiments
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
If this is such indisputable proof, why is it that intelligent people
don't buy it? Do they hate the thought of clean and abundant energy? We
know that's not the case from the events of 1989.
***because intelligent
that Galileo's detractors refused to look through the telescope. And yes,
I do think it's because of their greed, self-interest, hubris and various
other things.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol
the evidence became overwhelming,
particularly the fossil and seismologic evidence. Yes, it took a a long
time, because geology yields its secrets greedily, but it had nothing to do
with attrition.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
A good example
, arguing from silence. In
this case the silence is from the future, as if you knew what the future
beheld.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
If Polywater is an example
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
In Storms' book I think there are 180 positive excess heat studies. Each
one typically reflects several excess heat events. A few were based on
dozens of events. Fleischmann and Pons had the best success rate, running
Scientists must Study the Nuclear Weak Force to Better Understand LENR
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Scientists-must-Study-the-Nuclear-Weak-Force-to-Better-Understand-LENR.html
By Daily Energy Report | Tue, 07 May 2013 21:33 |
In the early part of the 20th Century
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
You're right. Polywater is different from cold fusion in that it was
debunked to everyone's satisfaction.
That may or may not happen in cold fusion, but it hasn't happened yet.
***Then by your own reasoning, LENR is
people bought it, the skeptics would be the ones whose
careers would be dragged through the mud.
***You proceed from an odd form of idealism. Scientists are human.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
interlab reproducibility is still a bitch.
***True enough, but that doesn't make it a pathological science. It makes
it a difficult one.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a reflection of what mainstream science thinks of cold fusion. It
doesn't answer the question of why, if the proof is so obvious,
***Interesting little conditional you've inserted here. The proof is not
obvious
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is
not credible.
***What a ridiculous line of reasoning. The evidence is credible, just
like the evidence for plate tectonics was credible. Just
incorrectly?
You won't answer because you can't. Your position becomes more
preposterous with each post.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell
joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now.
***I see you're changing your stance. Earlier you said it had stopped.
Always be careful of context, semantics, and qualifiers
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
It's self evident that there are images of an unknown physical entity.
***Wow, you put more credence into bigfoot than cold fusion. Amazing. Just
amazing. Note that National Instruments DID NOT go out on a limb to say
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me,
both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, ...
In my vocabulary ...
***Now that your position has been obliterated,
You mean you can't use that word? I did a search found it 128 times on
Vortex-L. Does that mean that all 128 times, those people were given a
timeout? I don't see evidence of it.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2013 14:20:42 -0700
Kevin
Going back to my corner of LENR, if it were not credible then the
replication of Dr. Arata's work would not have been published in Physics
Letters A.
You are not credible.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Who can deny that some of those photos are not explained? Therefore they
are images of an unknown physical entity.
***You're trying to twist the original dispute, which is that National
Instruments could have gone
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Sue me. I'm an anti-semantic.
I'm not saying cold fusion is bad because it's pathological.
I call it pathological because it's bad.
***Now you're back to your own Humpty Dumpty definitions. On top of that,
not been replicated 14,700 times as reported by another careful
scientist.
You're deluded.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
So, Pons Fleischmann were careless researchers, eh
1 - 100 of 939 matches
Mail list logo
