On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Null results in some fields far exceed positive results. Beaudette pointed
to the early experiments cloning mammals. He said it took about 1000
attempts for one success. I have pointed to the number of collisions
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I regard tritium as proof that a nuclear reaction occurred. It is as
convincing as excess heat far beyond the limits of chemistry. It is easy
for experts to confirm that tritium is real. This is another type of
evidence
PF claimed about 10 W in 1989, and in 1993 they claimed 140W excess (with
40 W input), and they published in refereed journals. Hagelstein is
claiming an unverified 100 mW, and they have not published the results. 100
mW is 1400 times smaller than 140 W.
***As I stated, Hagelstein's experiment was
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.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
***As I stated, Hagelstein's experiment was over 6 MONTHS. Rossi claims
he ran an industrial hot water heater for 2 YEARS. The time factor is the
one which has grown.
Unpublished and unverified claims that mean
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
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
But statistical analysis depends on the assumptions.
***Then plug in your assumptions back into the equation. If you think 5/6
researchers will generate false positive errors, then 1/6 will have
generated genuine positive results. If even 1/100 of them have generated
positive results then this
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
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
Unpublished and unverified claims that mean nothing.
***Sure they do, but they aren't worth as much as published and
'verified'. But does that mean your 450 published peer reviewed papers
on Polywater are worth more than a visit to a sitting professor at MIT with
a 6 month ongoing experiment?
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
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, Sept. 18, 1901
That's a 1901 article. They couldn't get published after 1903.
Wilbur Wright, Recent Experiments in Gliding Flight, November 1903
***I can't find this article. There is one with the exact same title from
1897 by Octave Chanute.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jed Rothwell
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.
Most of them were right. Most of the
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a 1901 article. They couldn't get published after 1903.
Wilbur Wright, Recent Experiments in Gliding Flight, November 1903
***I can't find this article.
See:
http://www.loc.gov/item/wright002973
They did not want to publish after 1903 for
I cannot vouch for the tally of positive replications counted by the people
at the Chinese Institute of High Energy Physics. It may be that there are
fewer than 14,720 positive runs reported in the literature. But here is the
salient point about all those replications. This simple fact is
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
As I recall, somewhere in his book, Polywater Felix Franks said that in
the end only one other lab claimed to replicate. Some others claimed
preliminary results that seemed interesting but they never claimed a
positive
Kevin, You just drove a stake through the heart of one of the silliest
arguments on record.
Tritium is detected at levels below what is necessary to explain excess
heat
Who cares? TRITIUM IS DETECTED ! Get it? This essentially proves the LENR
phenomenon is real.
Tritium is
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
As a practical matter the experimental method works. There is no
possibility that every single researcher has made a mistake in every single
high signal-to-noise ratio result. That would not happen in the life of the
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Kevin, You just drove a stake through the heart of one of the silliest
arguments on record.
** **
“Tritium is detected at levels below what is necessary to explain excess
heat”
** **
Who cares? TRITIUM IS
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
You're just repeating yourself, so I will too. Cold fusion is a theory to
explain erratic calorimetry results.
The results are not erratic. As shown by McKubre they are clearly governed
by control parameters such as loading and current density. When
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I cited 5 papers in Science, Nature, and JPC, all from different groups,
and I excerpted the parts where they make explicit claims to have produced
polywater. Whatever you recall is wrong.
Yes, there were reports of replications, according to Franks.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
You're just repeating yourself, so I will too. Cold fusion is a theory
to explain erratic calorimetry results.
The results are not erratic. As shown by McKubre they are
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
When the necessary conditions are met the effect ALWAYS occurs. Granted,
it is difficult to meet them.
Four years after McKubre said he had all the parameters defined, he said
he spoke to soon: With hindsight, we may now conclude that the
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I cited 5 papers in Science, Nature, and JPC, all from different groups,
and I excerpted the parts where they make explicit claims to have produced
polywater. Whatever you
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
When the necessary conditions are met the effect ALWAYS occurs.
Granted, it is difficult to meet them.
Four years after McKubre said he had all the parameters defined, he
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The results are not erratic.
Storms called cold fusion his reluctant mistress, and in an interview with
ruby carat (I think) he says the effect depends on mother natures mood (I'm
paraphrasing). Sounds erratic to me.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
If Polywater is an example of pathological science, then how many of
those peer reviewed papers were published AFTER the main realization that
chemicals in the cleaning process had affected the glassware used in the
Of course it is erratic. The only question is: Is it erratic because
of random error or because the required conditions are not created
every time. We now know that certain critical conditions are
required, which are not created except by guided luck. So what? This
problem is typical of
Plate tectonics were accepted when 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
Of all of the logical fallacies to watch out for in detecting when someone
is being intentionally intellectually dishonest in attacking a proposition
there are two that stand out:
1) Of the various disjunctive supporting arguments available, the attacker
will avoid the strongest.
2) When
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. They recently
concluded that with so much evidence of anomalous heat generation...
Cluster formation among many elements and chemical compounds play a
critical role in LENR.
One particular and potent form was discovered by Mark LeClair of NanoSpire.
Polywater looks like a clustered formation of water that a LeClair has
discovered.
This cluster is comprised of a long chin of
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
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 02:07:27PM -0700, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
***because intelligent people don't like having their careers dragged
through the mud.
Established researchers with plenty to lose but little to gain,
almost certainly.
Any PhD or postdoc would latch upon most desperate case if
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
Established researchers with plenty to lose but little to gain,
almost certainly.
Any PhD or postdoc would latch upon most desperate case if
she sensed a chance to make her bones on it.
That is not true in the real world. I know many professors and grad
I'm glad to hear that NI donated a PCMCIA card. Did they go out on a limb
and say (as with Cold Fusion) There is an unknown physical event? Nope.
I trust physicists who are skeptical. I don't trust physicists who are
pathologically skeptical, who refuse to look at the data in the same way
that
We've been infiltrated by a pre-programmed not-bot with volatile RAM
memory...
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude
joshua.c...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'joshua.c...@gmail.com');
wrote:
If this is such indisputable
Like Ed says,
What is the usefulness of all this discussion. Cude will not accept the
most obvious and well supported arguments and he will not
accept what I just said here. He makes no effort to find common ground or
to add any insight to the discussion. In his mind, the CF claims are only
Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now.
***I see you're changing your stance. Earlier you said it had stopped.
What's left now are only the mentally feeble and the scammers.
***Dr. Arrata is a mental giant compared to you.
The rest of your argument is a classic fallacy,
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
plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were accepted.
there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before.
all what happens is well described by thomas kuhn and nassim nicholas taleb.
about unreliability if you were not illiterate you will know the result of
On another heretical subject, I know a scientist that clearly state at the
end of a conference that he refused to ask his students to help him,
because it could ruin their career...
and the job was only statistical.
any real-life scientist claiming that you can work on cold fusion without
ruining
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Plate tectonics were accepted when 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
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
about unreliability if you were not illiterate you will know the result of
ENEA published at ICCF15 that link reliability to crystallography, and make
a strong correlation.
you can forget errors. errors dont correlate with crystallography, like
Hi,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
You need positive credible evidence to convince people that cold fusion is
real. And there isn't any.
It's a little painful to watch this thread, Joshua. Here you assert that
positive, credible evidence has not
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
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 02:06:49PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I doubt it. Here are some mass produced devices similar to a cold fusion
cell. An ordinary person at home cannot make them with off-the-shelf
components:
NiCad battery
Computer CPU chip
Catalytic converter
Fuel cell
All of
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
First of all, all data requires interpretation.
Of course, but review papers generally report interpretations of the
authors, rather than perform primary interpretation, especially on data
communicated privately, at
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Nevertheless, when many people report seeing the same behavior, the
reality of this behavior grows. You take the approach that none of the
claimed behavior has been observed, consisting instead of bad
interpretation
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude is reminiscent of the old geezers who righteously proclaimed
from their wheelchairs that man would never fly, set in their sclerotic
attitudes pressed into their brains through years behind the reins of their
Joshua, cold fusion is either a real phenomenon in Nature or it is
not. You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many
mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists. Regardless
of what is suggested as evidence, you will find a way to reject it.
While this approach
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Regardless of what is suggested as evidence, you will find a way to reject
it.
This is often stated, but of course it's nonsense. Who could reject a
phenomenon that replaces fossil fuels? That powers a car without
-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Joshua, cold fusion is either a real phenomenon in Nature or it is not. You
argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many mistakes
Well said, Randy.
It is a mystery why someone with considerable talent would indulge in this
kind of negativity, when at best the greatest satisfaction that can be
derived from it - is far exceed by the risk that the questioned effect is
real, but can be understood - but the peer pressure and
, May 07, 2013 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Joshua, cold fusion is either a real phenomenon in Nature or it is
not. You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many
mistakesmade repeatedly by many well trained scientists.
Regardless of what is suggested
“If man ever flies, it will not be within our lifetime, not within a
thousand years.” - Wilbur Wright to his brother Orville
Not only did Wilbur have a most difficult problem to solve, he also had to
contend with negativity from all sides, incompetence in his field, and the
cynics that are
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
Cude wrote:
You should keep an open mind to the possibility that cold fusion is not
the Wright brothers' airplane. Maybe it's Blondlott’s N-rays. It’s
Fedyakin’s polywater.
These things were never replicated. Only one lab briefly claimed to
replicate polywater, and it soon retracted. These
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
***Hagelstein wrote this editorial shortly after having his latest LENR
experiment run for several MONTHS in his lab. How has the size of the
claimed effect gotten smaller . . .
It has not gotten smaller. Especially considering the fact that the
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
I sincerely do not understand this collective exercise in masochism
based on discussion with a bravo as Joshua Cude.
He simply makes intentionally the error that considers CF's temporary
problems as a sign that. CF does not exist
Let's better concentrate on the problems of reproducibility and
Nice argument, Kevin. Of course, that is why science demands
replication. No two scientists will likely make the same mistake. As a
result, the behavior, if repeated many times, becomes real. That
threshold has been passed by cold fusion. Now the challenge is to do
studies that show why
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below) . . .
This is a tally of individual test runs. I believe it was done by a grad
student I believe, at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy
of Sciences. However, they did
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
I sincerely do not understand this collective exercise in masochism
based on discussion with a bravo as Joshua Cude.
It is not a bad idea to clarify the facts from time to time, for the
benefit of people such as Eugen Leitl. People should read the
Peter, the response to Cude is for educational purposes, which you of
all people should understand and support. Many readers of Vortex share
Cude's views. We need to educate them. Cude is their spokesman. The
other people might learn by having some of the challenges answered.
Nevertheless,
I 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.
Note that the number of failed tests within a study is not relevant. If
anything, some failed tests should give us
Dear Ed,
Cude is- in the best sense of the wording a paid killer. It is possible he
pays but this does not change much.
I was always open to discuss about those two critical problems. also with
low success rate (BTW Mizzou has said they have 20% success rate with their
Pd-D electrochemical
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
DGT tells all as stated as follows in their paper
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION
PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT
Rydberg State Hydrogen (RSH) atoms are short lived, even though their size
is relatively big, and they form special bonds with each other. Usually
acting
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
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?
I do not know. However, that is approximately the
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com mailto: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/CravensDtheenablin.pdf
This is an important paper.
- Jed
*
Acknowledgments
*
We would like to acknowledge and thank JED ROTHWELL, Ed Storms, Dieter
Britz, Bill Collis
and Steve Krivit for their diligent archival/historical work in preserving
the record of CMNS.
Our review was based largely upon their work.
***Come on, Jed, admit it. That's why you
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
We would like to acknowledge and thank JED ROTHWELL, Ed Storms, Dieter
Britz, Bill Collis
and Steve Krivit for their diligent archival/historical work in preserving
the record of CMNS.
Our review was based largely upon their work.
***Come on, Jed,
This is the greatest point that proved me that is was a psychiatric problem.
Not the least student may dare to use that argument seriously.
it is clear it is not an honest critic... or they should get back to the
college, to learn science.
I know that is violent, but i find no excuse for a
It's not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably
off by 4400 orders of magnitude. That's like saying a flea can fly fast
enough to knock over an elephant. Oops, scratch that, the flea would need
to be able to destroy 8 or 9 planets in a row. Well, actually, it's more
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably
off by 4400 orders of magnitude.
That's hilarious! As they say, you win the internets today. You have pwoned
Cude.
That's like saying a flea can fly fast enough to knock over
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
either a generation of scientist get their PhD in cereal box, or they hide
an inconvenient fact. that they cannot find a definitive reason not to
accept LENR .
Or they suffer from cognitive dissonance having invested
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
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Attempts to accelerate advancement requires a capital crime.
(assonance and alliteration)
And your post was the 666th email in my outlook/vortex folder... who's funeral
spell were you casting?
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 7:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
wrote:
And your post was the 666th email in my outlook/vortex folder… who’s
funeral spell were you casting?
LOL! I suppose someone should pay astute attention.
(alliteration and assonance)
;)
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
**
Cude would argue that there isn't a newly discovered (new is of course
relative) phenomenon and that everyone investigating it is deluded,
incompetent or both. What he can't explain is why anyone would run around
the
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . there appears to be little to be lost in pushing out criticism that
later turns out to have been unfounded nonsense. Some appear to feel
empowered to say whatever negative things they please without worrying that
they might turn out to be wrong
Murray wrote: Maybe you and Lomax have already long reached an impasse,
talking right past each other?
You are right. We have hashed this over several times, and ceased to make
any progress a long time ago. After all, the discussion is about results
mostly a decade or more old. It was hashed out
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
ordinary soil and tap water. Just mix the dirt with water 2:1 by mass in an
empty
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 07:26:42PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion.
Me neither! I promise to shut up.
Have any of you personally been able to reproduce anomalous
heat generation in your own
On May 6, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 07:26:42PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion.
Me neither! I promise to shut up.
Have any of you personally been able to
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:04:57AM -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
On May 6, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 07:26:42PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion.
Me
Eugen, here is a list of my publications. I wonder why you limit
youself to peer reviewed publications. I have been working in science
for 65 years and have never found a peer reviewed publication to be
more useful than other sources. A trained scientist should be able to
tell what is
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:38:23AM -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
Eugen, here is a list of my publications. I wonder why you limit
Thank you, I see I can get some of them online from LENR-CANR, which
is convenient.
youself to peer reviewed publications. I have been working in
In a field as
On May 6, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Murray wrote: Maybe you and Lomax have already long reached an
impasse, talking right past each other?
You are right. We have hashed this over several times, and ceased to
make any progress a long time ago. After all, the discussion is
Well, thanks Joshua Cude -- maybe Lomax will provide a comparable review of
his heat-helium correlation claim -- together, the two contrasting reviews
might attract attention by experts -- historians of science will make
comparisons with similar conundrums, such as the actual identity of dark
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
Were other investigators able to reproduce your results in
experimental setups of their own?
The best illustration of reproducibility between different labs is Fig. 3,
here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
- Jed
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
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
Not if the active material is a few grams of highly enriched nickel-62 :-)
From: Roarty, Francis X
The funny thing about your comment is that
you just know 30 minutes after someone finally nails the working principle
behind these
Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
The funny thing about your comment is that you just know
30 minutes after someone finally nails the working principle behind these
effects that they really will “Mcgiver” together a working example out of
off the shelf
Joshua Cude states without any basis with or proof from experimentation:
“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
101 - 200 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
