also. -- You'd just 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]:
Does anyone know if the power analyzer sees DC *VOLTAGES*?
--
Berke Durak
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Joshua Cude 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.
> Your statement has
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Harry Veeder 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
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 mak
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Joshua Cude 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 youtube poster t
Harry Veeder 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 claims these tests ac
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Joshua Cude 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 always possible that
mail.com]
Sent: 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 pr
> From: "David Roberson"
> 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.
> From: "Robert Lynn"
> 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 last)
> that I spent 100's
> 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 shall
This is the post you wanted to see as follows:
=
See references:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&;
source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%
2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-
NzeYg5Tp
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 LENR
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
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
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
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 b
Let me know if you need further
assistance.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Robert Lynn
To: vortex-l
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 (and non-GUI
is very slow and clumsy if
why?
>
> -Mark
>
> ** **
>
> *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 undergra
2013/6/1 Joshua Cude
>
>
> 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 Lumière brother b
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 pr
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 s
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:50 PM, John Berry 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 phenom
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Ruby 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, reprod
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:50 PM, John Berry 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 mainstream until a successf
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Jed Rothwell 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 an explanation of
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil 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 copious, reproduc
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell 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 same lines, when th
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> 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
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mark Gibbs 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 conventional physics as
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude 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 Go
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
> 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 volunta
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 ele
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, holocaust,
ignore and make business.
that is what serious guys do.
2013/5/31 Axil Axil
> 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 wrote:
>
>> I'd
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 no
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 wrote:
> I'd like to throw in as the 4th EE, graduated from University of
> California Santa Barbara 19
[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
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 p
Mark Gibbs 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 specify w
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
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell 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 disc
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
(
[Sent to Y.Y. This is not important. Sorry to be so obsessive.]
Yamali Yamali 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 primarily on an idealized ver
[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 the
[This was sent to Yamali Yamali instead of Vortex. He should adjust his
e-mail.]
Yamali Yamali 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."
I bet you won't f
Von: Jed Rothwell
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 20:22 Freitag, 31.Mai 2013
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:On deception
Joshua Cude 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 hal
Joshua Cude 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 electrician since Edison
who
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude 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 wants you
to measure are already exp
Joshua Cude 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 the bare wire
with
Yamali Yamali 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"???
>
If this were
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jed Rothwell 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 insulation,"
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 wrote:
quot;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, 2013 at
: 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
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
th
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 profe
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 eith
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 wrote:
>
> Jed wrote: "I do not think it takes long for an electrical engineer t
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.
Berke Durak 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 that report carefully
"a group of experts sent by a power industry"
Are you suggesting the power industry association had a hand in picking these
experts and the group they eventually came up with included Giuseppe Levi and
Hanno Essen based on their expertise?
Von: Berke Durak
An
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
64 matches
Mail list logo
