From: Steven Krivit
I note your non-response to name your anonymous advisors with whom you
discussed and dismissed the Piantelli-Focardi results. I note your
non-response to present the specific scientific critique of your anonymous
advisors.
I am sure that there is no innuendo here from
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the
Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book.
Your significant and long-standing contributions to LENR, in both time and
money, are of the highest order - and should always be recognized...
... and
Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the
Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book.
Your significant and long-standing contributions to LENR, in both time and
money, are of the highest order - and should always
The Mills situation is a bit more complex than you note, Stephen.
Hydrinos are not the only result of the Mills theory. He has created
a new model for atomic interaction and a new model for calculating
many fundamental constants including the ionization energy of most
elements. His model
I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the Ni-CF research is clearly
stated in my book.
Jed,
Is this the view to which you refer, from Cold Fusion and the Future?
Steve
***
There is one more twist to this problem. Cold fusion can transmute the
cathode metal
Jones Beene wrote:
... and your agenda of minimalizing the importance of Mills' theory to LENR
is also known and not secret.
As the British would say, this is utter bullocks. I have NO OPINION
about Mills' theory, or any theory. I do not understand theory, and I
could not care less about
Edmund Storms wrote:
The Mills situation is a bit more complex than you note, Stephen.
Hydrinos are not the only result of the Mills theory. He has created a
new model for atomic interaction and a new model for calculating many
fundamental constants including the ionization energy of most
Steven Krivit wrote:
Jed,
Is this the view to which you refer, from Cold Fusion and the Future?
. . .
Fortunately, there are good indications that cold fusion works well
with abundant metals including nickel and titanium, although
experiments with these materials have not yet been widely
I wrote:
The cold fusion reaction has been seen with palladium, titanium,
nickel, and with some superconducting ceramics. (Sticking my neck
out for Oriani and Mizuno.)
And Biberian! He reported patriotic French proton conductors: blue,
white and red.
- Jed
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
Ptolemaic cosmology predicted many things correctly, after all.
But the
moons of Jupiter shot it down none
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
they *succeeded* in their replication, *and* they looked at the published
data, *and* they found a mundane explanation for the apparent excess heat,
*and* they showed that the mundane explanation fully accounted for the
results of their
Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
Whoops -- You lifted the following quote from its context: You snipped
the part where I said, The claim Jed made was *not* that they failed to
replicate; it was that...
Consequently, you've made it sound like I
Stephen
I should not have jumped on you so hard. Sorry.
But please, your opinion is valuable, and this RD is valuable - so read
Steve's article, and the Piantelli papers, and let us know what you think -
not what someone else thinks you should think.
Jones
Jones Beene wrote:
The CERN groups response is really a joke in my opinion, let alone
disproof. They admit up front that they lack critical information from the
Piantelli-Focardi paper. Perhaps these were essential details which were
responsible for a failure to replicate anything.
They
Jones Beene wrote:
It really is as simple as this: Radioactivity = Credibility.
Transmutation = Credibility.
Credibility to scientists. Who needs 'em? Most of them are bought and
paid for by the DoE. As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever
you pay them to believe.
Excess Heat =
Steven Krivit wrote:
The Cerron-Zeballos work was not only incompetent, but
disingenuous: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml
I find it incredulous that someone with your experience in science
would even suggest that any negative result might disprove
another's
SK: The Cerron-Zeballos work was not only incompetent, but
disingenuous: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml
I find it incredulous that someone with your experience in science would
even suggest that any negative result might disprove another's claim.
You can
Steven Krivit wrote:
Experimental disproof would require Cerron-Zeballos to have gone into the
Piantelli-Focardi lab and determine exactly how Piantelli-Focardi goofed -
or explicitly analyzed Piantelli-Focardi's data, assuming they made a
mistake.
They did not need to do that any more than
SK: Experimental disproof would require Cerron-Zeballos to have gone into
the Piantelli-Focardi lab and determine exactly how Piantelli-Focardi
goofed - or explicitly analyzed Piantelli-Focardi's data, assuming they
made a mistake.
JR: They did not need to do that any more than Miles
From: Jed Rothwell
Cerron-Zeballos did a careful, year-long attempt to replicate, as you see
in the paper. As far as I can tell, they disproved the Focardi claims
On the contrary, as far as I can tell, they merely failed to replicate the
Focardi claims.
Failure to replicate should
I referred to Piantelli the other day. It turns out I have no papers
by him at LENR-CANR.org. There are several by his co-author Focardi, such as:
Focardi, S., et al., Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems.
Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1998. 111A: p. 1233.
21 matches
Mail list logo
