be
told to buzz off ). This is all subconscious.
So let them play their games.
Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US
From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 4:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception
There is one very very
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:
you have a point.
a good idea for latter as someone said in a forum is:
- to invite students who will play the skeptics, with stupid ideas, most
stupid, some not so stupid... with naive, not far from the one of
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.
Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's
law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to
argue that Carat's dismissal of
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Mark, you quoted Siegel as saying that CF violated physics because it did
not act like hot fusion. Carat simply pointed out that CF was not like hot
fusion and this comparison was not valid. She simply made a statement
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The Elforsk web page announcement is better than a signed statement, in
my opinion. So was EPRI's statement. A conclusion issued by an organization
carries more weight than statement signed by one EE.
Along the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
LENR complies with all know physical laws. The problem is that few
scientists have a background in this new branch of science.
You don't know what you're talking about. LENR is contrary to predictions
based on a century of
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me quote the specific text from Cude that I discussed:
You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
believers insist on
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:50 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
There is one very very simple truth.
Many will never believe right up until a technology is widely available.
If so, I think it will be a first. I am not aware of a phenomenon that was
widely rejected by the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:
How did quantum mechanics come about?
Experimental phenomenon occurred in blackbody radiation that could not be
explained by the conventional physical theories of the day.
Right, but all the anomalies that led to QM were robust,
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:50 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:
There is one very very simple truth.
Many will never believe right up until a technology is widely available.
If so, I think it will be a
Actually thinking about it. the reason these people reject big new thing is
because the have very small minds/vision, this is why they reject anything
big.
That is not the same as stupid, but literally they have very real limits to
them.
They reject these things because they want to keep a very
Jed wrote: No, it was their idea.
How do you know that? And in case this is one of those oh well, they didn't
say so but to me it sounds obvious that... assumptions of yours: why on earth
would anybody who has to write a paper like that bind their own hands behind
their backs with such a
2013/6/1 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Nothing against Elforsk or NI, but is there a recent example of a
revolution in science that was adopted first by instrument makers and
energy companies. And interest from NI is not surprising; it's a potential
market.
What was the industry of
** **
*From:* Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 1:26 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE
** **
Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad). On balance I think Rossi has
something, but I have been disappointed by too
me know if you need further
assistance.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE
Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore
Joshua:
I have keyed up on your sneering in the past, so it is only right that I
point out that your skepticism on this post is quite healthy and, with the
cheese analogy, even interesting to read. Once you drop the sneering, you
bring value to Vortex.
The next thing to learn is the difference
I showed Joshua Cude an experiment using Nanoplasmonic processes that
changed the alpha particle emission half-life of U232 form 69 years to 6
microseconds.
From his post, I conclude that either Cude is not intellectually honest in
that he does not let facts or experiments get in the way of his
Axil,
I missed that post. Can you repost the reference.
Does it have any relationship with the following arxiv.org paper that
might be relevant in plasmons?
New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0307012
ABSTRACT:
The small sub-barrier tunneling probability
Did you see this recent post as follows:
===
If you remember this thread as follows:
* *
Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling – 1/31/12
Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in
The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
reactions at low energy levels.
What causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart and reassemble their
subatomic parts in new ways?
Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend
insight into the
This is the post you wanted to see as follows:
=
See references:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1;
source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%
2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-
This is the post you wanted to see as follows:
=
See references:
Interesting paper.
I've only perused it, but it may be that eigenstates of unstable atoms are
sometimes dramatically shifted in these environments
- deep potential wells can become much shallower
From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:14:06 AM
Don't think I have Microsim pspice lying around anywhere anymore (and
non-GUI is very slow and clumsy if not using it frequently), it was
an excellent little tool (or was in late 90's when I used it
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:28:13 AM
Let me make a suggestion Robert. The linear technology company
publishes a spice program that can be downloaded and used by the
general public.
That's the LTspice I just recommended.
: Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:29 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception
Did you see this recent post as follows:
===
If you remember this thread as follows:
Entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling - 1/31/12
Why do entangled proton pairs pass
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully
inadequate to exclude deception.
Unless Rossi tells people how to build an ecat or starts selling them, no
test will ever exclude deception.
It
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true
believers will reject the assessment
because they consider the testers untrustworthy.
There have been several failed tests, such as the one NASA did. I do not
know anyone who
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Skeptics would change their minds in a heart beat with good evidence, just
as they did in 1908. But there is nothing that will convince true believers
in cold fusion that they are wrong.
You should persuade the
Cude wrote:
The simple fact is that the measurements made and reported are woefully
inadequate to exclude deception.
That is not a simple fact. It is an imaginary fact, like all of Cude's
statements about McKubre. He says things and then assumes they are correct,
but saying does not make it
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Likewise if the testers concluded that the ecat did not work, the true
believers will reject the assessment
because they consider the testers untrustworthy.
There have been
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It should be as demonstrable as the Wright's 1908 flight, which converted
all serious skeptics long before commercial flight. There are plenty of
anomalies that were accepted instantly because the evidence was strong.
Does anyone know if the power analyzer sees DC *VOLTAGES*?
--
Berke Durak
To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick.
To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks.
To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick.
But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
by a power industry association is stupid.
--
Berke
you have a point.
a good idea for latter as someone said in a forum is:
- to invite students who will play the skeptics, with stupid ideas, most
stupid, some not so stupid... with naive, not far from the one of
incompetent or voluntarily stupid skeptics.
- to invite few stage magicians, that will
berke.du...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 13:02 Freitag, 31.Mai 2013
Betreff: [Vo]:On deception
To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick.
To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks.
To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick.
But using
Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent
by a power industry association is stupid.
Well said! The whole notion is hilarious.
Even if it were shown that these people are not experts, you can be sure
someone at Elforsk read
Jed wrote: I do not think it takes
long for an electrical engineer to conclude that there is no possibility of
fraud in these tests.
I bet you won't find any EE with any experience in the business who would sign
such a statement.
Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:
Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an
With corp experience, I can confirm, but the question is only if the boss
agree with my opinion, I can give it... and if it is unsure I protect my
private parts safe.
so a positive report mean that the bos was ok, that the engineer was ok or
menaces to be fired.
that the boss was ok mean that
I join Terry and Jed on this. EE, 1962.
I might hesitate, in view of the subversion of some holy pronouncements
of the physics establishment, but sign I would.
Ol' Bab
On 5/31/2013 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered
Terry,
I won't hold that degree against you, I have hired a bunch of GA Tech
Engineers... I agree with Jed also. Sometimes I wonder if physicists ought
to be required to have an undergrad degree in engineering. Lots of
electromagnetic and thermodynamic stuff going on when you are dealing with
: 31 May 2013 18:46
To: Yamali Yamali
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception
Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a registered
professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE consulting engineers
and I agree with Jed.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM
: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 18:46 Freitag, 31.Mai 2013
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:On deception
Well, I graduated from Georgia Tech in 1977 with an EE, am a
registered professional engineer and manage a group of mostly EE
consulting engineers and I agree with Jed.
On Fri, May 31
I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of California
Santa Barbara 1998. I would sign. But if I were there and had the
wherewithal, I would have insisted on bringing in our own generator to
provide the input power.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David L Babcock
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Even the people here such as Cude cannot come up with anything. They are
scraping the bottom of the barrel when they say that three-phase
electricity is difficult to measure or there might be a hidden wire under
the
Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:
You've read their report, Terry, and you are an EE. And you would, based
on what you read in the report and what Hartman and Essen said in
interviews afterwards, sign a statement to the effect that there is no
possibility of fraud in these tests???
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires.
How does one measure voltage without stripping wires?
It's far from clear it wasn't Rossi or his delegate who didn't do all the
setup.
Okay, so you are saying they attached the voltage probe to
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires.
How does one measure voltage without stripping wires?
Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.
Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any scientist, electrician
or EE on God's Green Earth. There has not been an
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 20:22 Freitag, 31.Mai 2013
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:On deception
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you to
measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.
Too clever by half. This would not begin
[This was sent to Yamali Yamali instead of Vortex. He should adjust his
e-mail.]
Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de mailto:yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:
Jed wrote: I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer
to conclude that there is no possibility of fraud in these tests.
[Also sent to Y.Y.]
I wrote:
. . . Rossi's requirement in order to make sure that they
wouldn't investigate his industrial secret waveform . . .
No, it was their idea. Also their camera and their video recording.
Unless Rossi got a copy this would not help him prevent them
[Sent to Y.Y. This is not important. Sorry to be so obsessive.]
Yamali Yamali yamaliyam...@yahoo.de mailto:yamaliyam...@yahoo.de wrote:
So you're not basing the confidence that an EE would find fraud
impossible not on the report or on what Hartman and Essen said
afterwards but
Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad). On balance I think Rossi has
something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos
over the last two years to put my reputation on the line in backing him.
And there are some potentially big holes in the electrical power delivery
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of deception
that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed out, such
assertions cannot be tested or falsified. There might be an error in Ohm's
law we
LENR complies with all know physical laws. The problem is that few
scientists have a background in this new branch of science. Nanoplasmonics
produces about 2000 papers a year; the people that can produce that number
of papers are estimated to be no more than 1000 worldwide.
Please attend the
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of deception
that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed out, such
assertions cannot be tested or falsified. There might be an error in Ohm's
law we have not yet discovered, but until you
Mark, you quoted Siegel as saying that CF violated physics because it
did not act like hot fusion. Carat simply pointed out that CF was not
like hot fusion and this comparison was not valid. She simply made a
statement of belief, not a proof. Siegel also made a statement of
belief, not a
[mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 1:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE
Another EE here (plus mechanical undergrad). On balance I think Rossi has
something, but I have been disappointed by too many of his slap-dash demos
over the last two
What kind of credibility problems will the National instrument techs have
after the Ni show demo? What can Ni do to make that test fraud-proof?
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of
Let me quote the specific text from Cude that I discussed:
You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the
alleged observations, but do
ignore and make business.
that is what serious guys do.
2013/5/31 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
What kind of credibility problems will the National instrument techs have
after the Ni show demo? What can Ni do to make that test fraud-proof?
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley
There is one very very simple truth.
Many will never believe right up until a technology is widely available.
No demonstration could convince them, maybe not even if they ran it
themselves.
And some won't believe even then, there are deniers and skeptics for
everything, moon landings,
Mark, consider another example.
How did quantum mechanics come about?
Experimental phenomenon occurred in blackbody radiation that could not
be explained by the conventional physical theories of the day.
Also, the early planetary model of an atom with a central nucleus and
an orbiting
65 matches
Mail list logo
