The ear witness cannot help, has not observed ultrasound- he sayas:
*Does anyone recall an audible component to the demo (other than the pump
sloshing) which could be indicative of lower harmonics of ultrasound? *
Perhaps if somebody brings a dog to such a demo, he will know- dogs hear
Peter,
Thank you for checking.
Apparently, there is no ultrasound.
The need of differential heating, provided by electrical input, in a
situation where the reaction itself is gainful - is most unusual.
I cannot think of any corollary in an industrial process. I am still
struggling
There are many unknown unknowns here and surprises; what they do in Bologna
is more similar to industrial tests than with scientific experiments. The
Ecat decides so. The Murphy Laws are active in this case but this is not
significant as long as the generator works at high thermal production,
By a person, not Google translate:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article324.ece
- Jed
This is a discussion with Prof. Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven
Kullander, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy
Committee, and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics,
Swedish Royal Institute of Technology.
Overall it is quite positive!
- Jed
Joshua Cude wrote:
What I know doesn't matter, but it is very clear that most people who
know as much about tritium as your stars, don't believe the
measurements, or at least don't believe they come from cold fusion.
That is incorrect. There is no published papers from experts in tritium
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a discussion with Prof. Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven
Kullander, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee,
and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics, Swedish Royal
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
What I know doesn't matter, but it is very clear that most people who know
as much about tritium as your stars, don't believe the measurements, or at
least don't believe they come from cold fusion.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3091266.ece
According To Andrea Rossi Defkalion Will Have the exclusive
commercial rights to the 'energy catalyst' in Greece, the while two
U.S. companies Will Have the corresponding rights in the United
States.
One would guess that they
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
and chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society . . .
Which makes the acceptance of Rossi, and the total rejection of Mills all
the more curious... and indefensible... especially from a Skeptic.
Curious ... in the sense that Mills has strong academic
Joshua Cude wrote:
Scientists don't waste time publishing papers to point out errors or
express doubt in a phenomenon only a fringe group takes seriously.
This is not a fringe group. Look at the people I listed in previous
messages in this thread:
Roland A. Jalbert of Los Alamos and the
Jones Beene wrote:
Curious ... in the sense that Mills has strong academic credentials, no
hidden ingredients, a vetted theory with 20 years of refinement, a stellar
Board of directors,$60mm raised in capital - and yet suffers only from the
lack of 100% independence in verification.
I do not
Joshua Cude wrote:
If the effect were real, it would not stall at the marginal level.
Many cold fusion results are marginal, but others are not. Even in 1989
there were many dramatic heat events and some tritium production at
extraordinarily high signal to noise ratios. There were solid
I wrote:
Frankly, a stellar board of directors or $60 million do not impress me much
either. If I had to guess, I suppose it would mean that many of Mills
experiments and claims are well supported. That's true for bulk Pd-D cold
fusion as well, but I have never thought that technique has any
These days I had a rather friendly correspondence
with Robert Park the author/editor of the What's New
column. Robert fights against pseudoscience, but
very unfortunately he made the fatal error to not see
the reality of cold fusion. I have asked him to tell
his opinion about the latest
At 02:46 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
You seem to know something about this research. Surely you have read
McKubre, Fleischmann and Storms and seen the graphs. Yet you persist
in calling these results marginal. You are either technically
illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 25 Feb 2011 05:39:14 -0800:
Hi,
Peter,
Thank you for checking.
Apparently, there is no ultrasound.
The need of differential heating, provided by electrical input, in a
situation where the reaction itself is gainful - is most unusual.
I
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The assertion that a determined con artist can do this or that
strikes me as inadequate. A con artist is not a magician capable of
changing the laws of physics or magically influencing instruments.
Uh, Jed, a con artist is indeed a magician, that is, someone
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:17:40 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
By a person, not Google translate:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article324.ece
- Jed
Ni has roughly the following isotopes/percentages:-
Ni-58 68%
Ni-60 26%
Ni-611%
Ni-624%
Just a comment to Jed and Abd, and a few other patient participants.
I've enjoyed being a spectator to this thread. I guess that makes me
somewhat of a sadist.
By all means continue clarifying all the misconceptions being spewed
out from this particular thread. Many of you have harder skulls
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Yet you persist in calling these results marginal. You are either
technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances at the
graph on the front page at
http://lenr-canr.org/index.htmlhttp://lenr-canr.org will see you
are wrong.
That's P13/P14. There is
I wrote:
However, I just meant that the margin of error bars are marked at the bottom
of the graph along with the blue line for light water, and the red heavy
water line is far above that margin.
Plus, PLUS! the red line is beautifully correlated with a control factor,
current density. You
--
From: Jed Rothwell ..Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
... Here is an example of an experiment that could be faked. Dennis
Cravens
proposed to use Pd-D powder to produce heat inside a thermoelectric device
that would light
Dennis wrote:
Jed, thanks for the compliment... I think
It was a compliment. My point about that proposed experiment was that it
was not a good means of convincing skeptical people. That many not
matter. No experiment can accomplish every goal. The LED experiment
would be fascinating
Lots of people feel that way, and are doing similar experiments. As far
as I know, Brian Ahern is leading the pack. Ask him for some of his
material.
He was one of these people who made a large impact at ICCF-16 without
being there. He told me he will never go to India .. - Jed
At 04:07 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The assertion that a determined con artist
can do this or that strikes me as inadequate.
A con artist is not a magician capable of
changing the laws of physics or magically influencing instruments.
Uh, Jed, a con artist
Dennis wrote:
Yes, it would be hard to fake much over 1kW... wall plugs being what
they are,
gauge of wires being what they are. (unless you used part of the
plumbing as
your current carrier).
Ah! That's one I hadn't thought of.
So it is becoming very interesting -if you believe
any
At 04:30 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Yet you persist in calling these results marginal. You are
either technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who
glances at the graph on the front page at
http://lenr-canr.org/index.htmlhttp://lenr-canr.org will see
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely it has been realized by now that it's not likely to be Mr.
Rothwell, or Mr. Lomax, or anybody on this list that possesses an
arsenal of information accurate enough to blast a hole through this
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There have been dramatic demonstrations, I've read about them, but I
don't care to look them up. I'm simply going to assert that, given
enough motivation, I could fake a demonstration like that reported.
I'd have to have the motivation, and I certainly don't. I'm not
At 04:44 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
However, I just meant that the margin of error bars are marked at
the bottom of the graph along with the blue line for light water,
and the red heavy water line is far above that margin.
Plus, PLUS! the red line is beautifully correlated
At 04:44 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Plus, PLUS! the red line is beautifully correlated with a control
factor, current density. You can see that at a glance. A correlation
is an important way to separate noise from meaningful data.
McKubre once wrote that he could do a much better job
At 04:25 PM 2/25/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Just a comment to Jed and Abd, and a few other patient participants.
[...]
Surely it has been realized by now that it's not likely to be Mr.
Rothwell, or Mr. Lomax, or anybody on this list that possesses an
arsenal of information
At 06:20 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Impossible. Until someone can propose a plausible a way to fake the
two Rossi demos, I will consider that impossible. Without specifics,
the claim that it might be faked cannot be tested or falsified.
Why does this sound so familiar?
Until someone
At 05:37 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Dennis wrote:
Yes, it would be hard to fake much over 1kW... wall plugs being
what they are,
gauge of wires being what they are. (unless you used part of the plumbing as
your current carrier).
Ah! That's one I hadn't thought of.
This is my
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Why does this sound so familiar?
Until someone can propose a plausible mechanism that will explain cold
fusion, I will consider it impossible.
Wrong comparison. The comparison you should make is:
Until someone can prove otherwise, I am sure
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
,in the data by orders of magnitude (10^10 if I remember), from the fact
that the highest values came from BARC within weeks of the press
conference (for what is supposed to be a very difficult experiment),
that they have gotten smaller over the years,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Ah! That's one I hadn't thought of.
This is my point, there may be a million things you haven't thought of.
Nope. That does not work. A good experiment cannot have a million possible
problems. If we had to think up a million ways that an
Jed Rothwell wrote:
The worst example was the Correa claim that a stationary gold leaf
electroscope
does work. No, it doesn't! It isn't a little guy standing with his arms out.
He claimed to have electrical evidence that a stationary gold leaf electroscope
does work.
I assume your
On 02/25/2011 04:06 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But what about the hydrogen control? Well, the skeptical mind will
assert, hydrogen bubbles are twice as bouyant as deuterium bubbles, so
the noise is less
Er, no.
The buoyancy is due to the difference between the density of the
On 02/25/2011 04:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Yet you persist in calling these results marginal. You are either
technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances at the
graph on the front page at
http://lenr-canr.org/index.htmlhttp://lenr-canr.org will
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
He claimed to have electrical evidence that a stationary gold leaf
electroscope
does work.
For the audience: this means it performs work. (The English it does work
is confusing, as it could mean it does what it is supposed to do.)
I assume your
I wrote:
In an experiment with only 4 main parameters -- input power, inlet
temperature, outlet temperature and flow rate -- the number of potential
significant errors will BE small, and so will the number of ways
deliberately fake data can be surreptitiously introduced.
This is a bit like
At 08:45 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Why does this sound so familiar?
Until someone can propose a plausible mechanism that will explain
cold fusion, I will consider it impossible.
Wrong comparison. The
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Not so
curious about what he will write- that's his personal problem
of prestige management. I feel much empathy for him, I am
not an authorithy so I be very open and sincere.
Love your enemy.
Peter, you are a true
At 09:07 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Ah! That's one I hadn't thought of.
This is my point, there may be a million things you haven't thought of.
Nope. That does not work. A good experiment cannot have a million
At 09:28 PM 2/25/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/25/2011 04:06 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But what about the hydrogen control? Well, the skeptical mind will
assert, hydrogen bubbles are twice as bouyant as deuterium bubbles, so
the noise is less
Er, no.
The buoyancy is due
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
That's correct. It would take a magician familiar with physics, perhaps.
Certainly that would be the case here. Ordinarily, magicians can fool
physicists about as well as they can fool anyone else.
No doubt they can, but they cannot fool
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
With a single report, lots of opportunities exist for error or, yes, fraud.
With many reports, and especially with independent confirmations . . .
This is not a single report. People have done flow calorimetry millions of
times.
Seriously,
See:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/message/894
Antony asks:
Dr. Mills, your theory presents electrons in atoms as spheres that enclose a
nucleus rather than points or electron clouds or probability waves. I was
wondering if a neutron can pass through the electron
At 09:36 PM 2/25/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/25/2011 04:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Yet you persist in calling these results marginal. You are either
technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances at the
graph on the front page at
Understand your enemy is much more realistic. Be convinced I know well
what he has said in 140 'What's New' messages re. Cold Fusion;
a chronology of his attacks can be found there:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/BobParkColdFusion.shtml
52 matches
Mail list logo
