Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 07:26:42PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms 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 experimental

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 nickel, and refine it. LENR++ uses ordinary soil and tap water. Just mix the dirt with water 2:1 by mass in an empty t

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

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

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Joshua Cude I wonder if you have been keeping up with the new thinking in LENR. Specifically, I would like your opinion of the new theories posed by NASA and Widom-Larsen centered on the polariton. These theories are more applicable to the Ni/H reactor (LENR+) rather than the older LENR theories

RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial My vortex-l posting habits has gone down significantly within the last six months due to the fact that I need to focus on my own personal research as compared to constantly getting ensnared in another "discussion" thread. (Vor

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Joshua Cude, Seems you might end up being the last person standing... May ask you to offer a few decisive critiques to refute Lomax's claim, much repeated for a year or longer, that heat and helium are correlated in standard cold fusion experiments, some years ago -- for instance, have there been

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Edmund Storms wrote: > Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion. Me neither! I promise to shut up. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

While I agree with Cude about the need for ideas to be challenged and claims to be questioned, his style is not helpful in clarifying the issues about CF. Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion. I suggest other people consider what happened last time Vortex was subjected t

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

I do not want to beat this recombination issue to death, but let me mention one other thing. With an open cell, you ensure there is no significant recombination with a variety of methods, such as measuring the gas flow with an inverted test tube underwater, or with a gas flowmeter. The other metho

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > He said nothing that "skeptics" did not say in 1990. > Please. My main argument is the complete absence of progress in 24 years. No one argued that in 1990. I refer to your 2001 opinion that the results fail to stand out, and to the opinion

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis. > > That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison. > It's one thing to say that you don't agree with any of the published challenges to cold fusion. We already kno

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > The second was that they seemed to have undue confidence in their > knowledge, leaving them vulnerable to overlooking evidence and explaining > it away. > That's always a danger, but funding agencies and journal editors and hiring committees

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > >> Poor choice of words on my part. Of course I know that skeptics and >> believers disagree about the quality of the evidence . . . >> >> This is not a matter of opinion. The quality of evidence is measured > objectively

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > First of all, you and many other people made such a fuss about CF being > impossible, that the money required to advance understanding was denied. > Poppycock. The argument was that CF was highly unlikely, but in spite of that, much of the s

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Someone wrote: > > >> Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The >>> credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis >>> and Huizenga and others. >>> >> > Lewis' experiment was positive. He s

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Why now? Perhaps it was the publication of the photos after this: Jam April 30th, 2013 at 5:46 AM Did you start loading on the truck? Don’t forget to take a few pictures. Andrea Rossi May 1st, 2013 at 8:04 AM Dear Neri

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

I address this issue in my book, which Joshua obviously has not read. But you are right, Jed. This issue has been laid to rest so completely, one has to wonder why it has been brought up now. This is like someone now arguing for the flat earth concept. Ed On May 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Jed Ro

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Eric Walker wrote: It is clear that you're willing to do this -- you just posted a very nice > post addressing points in Jed's reply and raising a number of juicy details. > Nope. He said nothing that "skeptics" did not say in 1990. Everything they said then and that Cude repeats now was promptl

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Joshua Cude wrote: > Surely you're aware of the Jones' challenge to Miles' results in Jones & > Hansen, "Examination of Claims of Miles…", J. Phys. Chem. 95 (1995) 6966. > > Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis. That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: What makes you think that? They are certainly not seen as overzealous now, > except by true believers. If it plays out in such a way that there are no > true believers left, there is no reason to think *anyone* will regard them > as having been o

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Joshua Cude wrote: > Poor choice of words on my part. Of course I know that skeptics and > believers disagree about the quality of the evidence . . . > > This is not a matter of opinion. The quality of evidence is measured objectively, based on repeatability and the signal to noise ratio. Anyone l

RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

My vortex-l posting habits has gone down significantly within the last six months due to the fact that I need to focus on my own personal research as compared to constantly getting ensnared in another "discussion" thread. (Vortex-l can be so "addictive"!) Nevertheless, every now and then, somet

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Joshua, I find your arguments not only logically inconsistent but not even accurate. First of all, you and many other people made such a fuss about CF being impossible, that the money required to advance understanding was denied. OK, we all know that some money was provided. This amount did

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Someone wrote: > Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The >> credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis >> and Huizenga and others. >> > Lewis' experiment was positive. He showed that cold fusion probably does exist. This was some of the

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > > > >> Not totally wrong, just wrongly interpreted. >> > > Then you should help the laymen and failed scientists here interpret the > misinterpreted evidentiary record -- specifically, you should focus your > energy on specific details of speci

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> That's cold fusion's problem: the quality of the evidence is abysmal -- >> not better than the evidence for bigfoot, alien visits, dowsing, >> homeopathy. . . >> >> > Incorrect. The quality of evidence is excellent. >

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Beside cold fusion problem I would raise that this claim is incoherent with the work of Thomas Kuhn on scientifc revolutions. Howevet the claim is coherent with tha work of Nassim Nicholas Taleb that explain that history is rewritten so that some members of the mainstream community get the paterni

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Again, hardly an attack on the strongest of the arguments of the opposing proposition. Please, let's have some intellectual honesty for a change. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Rich Murray wrote: > Joshua Cude is right -- today, 24 years after 1989, is there any lab > anywhere that has a sin

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Joshua Cude is right -- today, 24 years after 1989, is there any lab anywhere that has a single running cold fusion genre experiment that produces verifiable anomalies? With global exponential evolution in all fields concurrent with the Net... I like that Widom and Larsen vividly discuss a huge s

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

I don't know whether to thank you for providing emotional comfort for my working hypothesis that cold fusion's excess heat is a real effect, or whether to curse you for providing such a poor excuse for skepticism that it will lead guys like me to become lax in our genuine skepticism. Going off lik

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Hi, First let me say I really like your enthusiasm for debunking. It is rare to see that much energy. > Not totally wrong, just wrongly interpreted. > Then you should help the laymen and failed scientists here interpret the misinterpreted evidentiary record -- specifically, you should focus yo

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Joshua Cude wrote: > That's cold fusion's problem: the quality of the evidence is abysmal -- > not better than the evidence for bigfoot, alien visits, dowsing, > homeopathy. . . > > Incorrect. The quality of evidence is excellent. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf As E

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

> So, we now have a contest. Not a contest. It's a disagreement. I think CF is almost certainly not real. You seem certain that it is. > Either you and other skeptics are correct or I and other believers in CF are correct. You leave no middle ground. Nature will be the judge and the final judgi

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Yes Joshua, I know you do not believe CF is real. You have been consistent in this attitude for years as the evidence kept accumulating. So, we now have a contest. Either you and other skeptics are correct or I and other believers in CF are correct. You leave no middle ground. Nature will b

<    1   2   3