[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Now that the holidays are winding to a close, is there any update on the Defkalion visit? Any rough approximation as to when information may be forthcoming? Hi. Nothing more to report for now. As I said in my original report, the purpose was to plan a full scale test. It may be weeks or months before that test can be done. I hope it will be done before ICCF17 in August. They say they expect they will be free to publish the results, at ICCF17 and possible before that at LENR-CANR.org and other web sites. This would be an independent test, but not an open or public one, like some of Rossi's tests have been. It is regrettable that things have been kept so confidential in cold fusion. That is because of politics and the opposition. I am sorry that I have to be so vague. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is regrettable that things have been kept so confidential in cold fusion. That is because of politics and the opposition. I am sorry that I have to be so vague. Politics and opposition is a bad theory when it comes to Defkalion's silence. A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time, “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.” Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it. You just never learn… Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts? If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include learn.h -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is regrettable that things have been kept so confidential in cold fusion. That is because of politics and the opposition. I am sorry that I have to be so vague. Politics and opposition is a bad theory when it comes to Defkalion's silence. A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time, “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.”* *** ** ** Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it. You just never learn… Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts? If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include learn.h -Mark Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is?
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
Mary Yugo stated/asked, “Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is?” That’s easy… and I’ve explained it to you before. I have stated my reservations (more than once) about the whole affair 6 months ago; and because I try to abide by the guidelines of this forum, I don’t want to repeat what I have already stated. What part of that don’t you understand? -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited 2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time, “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.” Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it. You just never learn… Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts? If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include learn.h -Mark Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is?
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
You've already told her to shut up several times, so that's repetitive and boring as well. On Jan 4, 2012, at 13:48, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Mary Yugo stated/asked, “Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is?” That’s easy… and I’ve explained it to you before. I have stated my reservations (more than once) about the whole affair 6 months ago; and because I try to abide by the guidelines of this forum, I don’t want to repeat what I have already stated. What part of that don’t you understand? -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited 2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time, “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.” Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it. You just never learn… Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts? If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include learn.h -Mark Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is?
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Mary Yugo stated/asked, “Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is?” ** ** That’s easy… and I’ve explained it to you before. I have stated my reservations (more than once) about the whole affair 6 months ago; and because I try to abide by the guidelines of this forum, I don’t want to repeat what I have already stated. What part of that don’t you understand? I am not responding to your repetition. I didn't allege that you repeat yourself. I am responding to other people who make the same specious claims and assumptions over and over again. You don't seem to mind THEIR repetitions. Obviously, what bothers you the most is people who make cogent arguments that Rossi and Defkalion may be lying and scamming.
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
Charles Hope said, “You've already told her to shut up several times, so that's repetitive and boring as well.” I have never told her to “shut up”… I have only requested that she not repeat lengthy explanations; that she should simply state that she disagrees and provide the link to previous postings which have her comments/explanations. -m From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:01 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net: Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time, “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.” Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it. You just never learn… Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts? If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include learn.h Now, now, Mark . . . no ad hominem attacks. Wait! If she really is a skeptibot, then it's not ad hominem. I guess it's ad machina. Hey, Bill, could we get a ruling on ad machina attacks? T (dazed and confused)
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
Mary states, “I am not responding to your repetition. I didn't allege that you repeat yourself. I am responding to other people who make the same specious claims and assumptions over and over again. You don't seem to mind THEIR repetitions. Obviously, what bothers you the most is people who make cogent arguments that Rossi and Defkalion may be lying and scamming.” My position has been for close to 10 months now, that there has always been some elements of the demos that results in INCONCLUSIVE results. Thus, all the speculations, for or against, including yours, are pretty much wasted bandwidth. This will play out however it does and nothing you write is going to change that. I prefer truth, and feel perfectly fine when that truth goes against what I might want. In fact, I was the one who brought up one of the major criticisms of the 1MW demo in my vortex posting on 10/7/2011 11:05PM: --- “The Tout thermocouple being within an inch or two of the hot steam flow into the heat exchanger does not sit well w/me... From watching Lewan's video again, the external heat exchanger (XHX) was operated in counter-current flow, where the steam from the primary circuit flowed opposite to the water flow in the secondary circuit. Yeah, yeah, we don't really know how that XHX is constructed, but let's just look at the inlet/outlet physical locations on both sides of it. The steam entered the same side of the XHX as did the out-flowing heated water from the secondary side. So we are assuming that the metal fitting to which the thermocouple was attached, was at the temperature of the water flowing inside and was not influenced by the 120+C steam that was entering only an inch or two away from the thermocouple??? Just doesn't sit well w/me... ...now I can go to bed. -m --- Others have registered their skepticism, and I don’t chastise them because they don’t do it hundreds of times a month! The difference between you and I, is that you feel some OVERWHELMING, ALMOST PATHOLOGICAL NEED to make sure that some newbie on this list doesn’t go away with a skewed impression. I could care less… If someone is so mildly interested in this topic that they only come here once or twice, who cares what kind of impression they go away with? I don’t. Why should you?That is not the PURPOSE of this forum. I have explained this before… get the wax out of your ears. Vortex-l is not a website where people only visit once, read the comments and get some impression, never likely to return. Nearly all the contributors read this forum daily, and are therefore well aware of the HISTORY of people’s opinions. Thus, there is no need to continually state your own; or correct what YOU PERCEIVE as the wrong conclusions. Do not treat this forum as you would the comment section of some website; it is primarily for technical discussions. I asked once before, how many of your 750+ postings in only three months have any significant technical content? Any calculations? I’m not about to go back and count, but in the postings of yours that I have read, I don’t remember ANY calculations. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:24 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited 2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Mary Yugo stated/asked, “Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is?” That’s easy… and I’ve explained it to you before. I have stated my reservations (more than once) about the whole affair 6 months ago; and because I try to abide by the guidelines of this forum, I don’t want to repeat what I have already stated. What part of that don’t you understand? I am not responding to your repetition. I didn't allege that you repeat yourself. I am responding to other people who make the same specious claims and assumptions over and over again. You don't seem to mind THEIR repetitions. Obviously, what bothers you the most is people who make cogent arguments that Rossi and Defkalion may be lying and scamming.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
Sorry Terry, Mary... just had some spare time and wanted to read something interesting and all I saw was the usual tired repetition... back to the salt mines! -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited 2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net: Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time, “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.” Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it. You just never learn… Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts? If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include learn.h Now, now, Mark . . . no ad hominem attacks. Wait! If she really is a skeptibot, then it's not ad hominem. I guess it's ad machina. Hey, Bill, could we get a ruling on ad machina attacks? T (dazed and confused)
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net: Sorry Terry, Mary... just had some spare time and wanted to read something interesting and all I saw was the usual tired repetition... back to the salt mines! Go read Embassytown by China Mieville. Possibly the most bizarre scifi I have ever read. T
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Others have registered their skepticism, and I don’t chastise them because they don’t do it hundreds of times a month! A tiny bit of hyperbole perhaps? I respond to others so I only do it a hundred times a month if they do it the same or more. But you don't object to them is my point. Vortex-l is not a website where people only visit once, read the comments and get some impression, never likely to return. Nearly all the contributors read this forum daily, and are therefore well aware of the HISTORY of people’s opinions. Thus, there is no need to continually state your own; or correct what YOU PERCEIVE as the wrong conclusions. Then there is also no need to restate the alleged and erroneous problems with the patenting process, there is no need to restate Rossi's ridiculous claims over and over, and since everyone can read his misnamed blog, there is no need to parrot every grandiose claim he writes on it, is there? But you never seem to complain about THAT. You only complain when I RESPOND to it. That's what I find very strange and grossly inappropriate, not to mention the *ad hominem* attacks. Do not treat this forum as you would the comment section of some website; it is primarily for technical discussions. I asked once before, how many of your 750+ postings in only three months have any significant technical content? Any calculations? I’m not about to go back and count, but in the postings of yours that I have read, I don’t remember ANY calculations. My math prowess stopped at intermediate calculus, intermediate statistics and introduction to vector analysis. And I've forgotten a lot of it. Most of the traffic here that I respond to has nothing to do with calculations. When it does, I do my best. For example, I connected up David R. with an individual who performed a detailed mathematical simulation of Rossi's October 6 experiment which suggests that the results were wrongly interpreted. Initially, I helped the person with translating the discussion to more conventional English and I relayed both sides to the email list. Eventually, that got tiring so I succeeded in connecting them up privately and anonymously. David said he would forward the results of those ongoing discussions when they are available. Not everyone who can contribute has to be a math genius such as you consider yourself to be. Contributions can also be made in many other ways. I follow quite a bit of the math-- but I readily admit that computer modeling and complex calculations of heat transfer and fluid flow particulars are not my forte though I do understand the basic principles involved and can perform the simpler ones. Others conduct discussions of the non-mathematical aspects of Rossi and Defkalion extensively here. You only seem to find my input objectionable. It's opposed to credulous belief in Rossi and Defkalion claims. Strange you limit your objections to that.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
On 12-01-04 01:35 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: 2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net mailto:zeropo...@charter.net Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time, “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.” Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it. You just never learn… Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts? If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include learn.h -Mark Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is? Same old Mark. He hasn't changed. If you're skeptical, you get ad hominems. I've been filtering out his messages ever since he responded to a comment of mine regarding Naudin's results with a not particularly incisive argument to the effect that I was pathetic. Mary, regardless of whether you're a woman, a man, or a chatterbot (or, for that matter, somebody's pet chinchilla which has learned how to type, as well as how to do calorimetry), you're very probably wasting your time by arguing with Mark. (The last two seem pretty unlikely, of course.)
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
Stephen stated: “Same old Mark. He hasn't changed. If you're skeptical, you get ad hominems.” Not true Stephen… Both your and Mary’s whole argument against my chastising the repetition (by one person) is based on the premise that I don’t like skepticism. You obviously did not see or read my recent comment back to Mary destroying that assumption: 1) There are several others who are just as skeptical as Mary, and I have not chastised them because they do not continuously state their position. 2) I was the one who brought up the criticism about the thermocouple possibly being too close to the steam inlet on one of the demos, so I have significantly CONTRIBUTED to the skepticism. The diff is that I, and all other skeptics on this list, don’t continually remind the forum that the evidence is inconclusive. So your assumption that I attack skepticism is blatantly false!! I am simply chastising the endless repetition that constantly comes out of one person… I seriously doubt if there is anyone on this forum who doesn’t know what MY’s position is. Please provide a link to the posting where I referred to you as ‘pathetic’, and if I did not apologize, then I will do so. -Mark From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited On 12-01-04 01:35 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: 2012/1/4 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Mary Yugo stated, for the millionth time, “A much better theory is that, as Rossi says, they have nothing to show.” Same old tired repetition, despite numerous requests that you avoid it. You just never learn… Is there really a brain behind the name or is it just a very poor implementation of Artificial Intelligence responding to vortex posts? If AI, then the programmer forgot to #include learn.h -Mark Same response to the same repetition of absolute nonsense about Rossi and Defkalion. You always seem to object to my response but not to the inanity that spawned it. Why do you think that is? Same old Mark. He hasn't changed. If you're skeptical, you get ad hominems. I've been filtering out his messages ever since he responded to a comment of mine regarding Naudin's results with a not particularly incisive argument to the effect that I was pathetic. Mary, regardless of whether you're a woman, a man, or a chatterbot (or, for that matter, somebody's pet chinchilla which has learned how to type, as well as how to do calorimetry), you're very probably wasting your time by arguing with Mark. (The last two seem pretty unlikely, of course.)
[Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
Now that the holidays are winding to a close, is there any update on the Defkalion visit? Any rough approximation as to when information may be forthcoming?
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited
I agree. I want more information. As I see it right now, we have zero proof that they have built any working reactor cores themselves. I think it is likely that a long time ago Rossi loaned them a few cores to test, but I do not know if they have built a working, practical cold fusion system. If they want anyone to take them seriously, they need to show some real test results. Then they need to show evidence they are using their own technology, and are not simply using Rossi's without his permission. From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion - Revisited Now that the holidays are winding to a close, is there any update on the Defkalion visit? Any rough approximation as to when information may be forthcoming?
