As a pragmatic skeptic, I'm looking for a cold fusion anomaly of any kind
that has been described in exhaustive detail and which Believer's and
Agnostics have discussed throughly and have been unable to discount -- I
submit that the paper that Jed Rothwell cites in this thread is very sparse
on det
Raving loonie True Believer stuff! Daiso, the Japanese dollar-store, has
"replacement blades for hair cutter." They're double-edged razor blades!
Ten for a buck. Finally I can build an ultra-black beam-dump. Thick
stacks of double-edge razor blades are used as high-power beam dumps in
res
There are a lot of opinions that can dramatically lower one's evolutionary
fitness if expressed. For example, when Moses came down with his tablets
and was, shall we say, depressed by the reception -- he asked for the
"opinion" of those around him and those who agreed with him were then
ordered to
On Sat, 11 May 2013, Joshua Cude wrote:
I'm not interested in an inaccessible (non-archived) list like vortex-b, so
I'll just slink away. I may post a few responses to Rothwell's latest
replies over on wavewatching.net/fringe if they tolerate it.
Or, just stick with the greater world of weird-b
Robin,
If that was his strategy, he may have made a costly error in the wording.
The way the application and main claim is drafted now, in the context of
prior art - essentially seems to protect only the use of Ni-62.
A logical scenario, based on Focardi's contacts with the Italian nuclear
esta
Well "cost effective" would be in the context of the value of the output
over time, no?
If Rossi could buy nickel powder enriched in the active isotope by a factor
of 8-10 times over natural enrichment - and get it for $100 per gram (in
quantity) and he needs only 10 grams for a 10 kW reactor th
Mark Gibbs wrote:
Are the fine details of the Toyota experimental set up known?
>
Not known to me. But some details are straightforward. You can see from the
paper it was bulk Pd-D at high temperatures. When the Pd loads and the
effect turns on, high temperature increases the reaction rate, so i
Kevin O'Malley wrote:
We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so
> obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than small
> 's' skeptic.
>
It is a judgement call.
Science is objective, yet at the finest level of detail, it is a judgement
call. It
On Sun, 12 May 2013, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Which would be in violation of Rule 2, as well.
How about this part:
"Note that "small-s skepticism" of the openminded sort is perfectly
acceptable on Vortex-L. We crackpots don't want to be *completely*
self-deluding. :) The ban here is aimed
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 May 2013 12:41:36 -0700:
Hi,
I suspect that Rossi put 62Ni in the patent application to play it safe. He
knows that some other isotopes could give rise to radioactive isotopes, and
wants to avoid that, so that his reactors can be placed in homes. Howev
Jones,
It's a very interesting analysis. I just to want to add 2 comments:
Rossi always claims to have very cost effective powder and catalyst. If
enriched nickel is needed, stop me if I'm wrong, but there is no intrinsic
reason to have a very high purity of Ni62. The last percents are always the
So, here's two cases where Joshua Cude and Jed Rothwell concur about
evidence.
***It is this kind of common ground and base set of facts that we should
try to establish as a group. If anyone comes along hoping to debunk it,
they can read the base set of facts and either move on or engage with us.
We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so
obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than small
's' skeptic.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
> By 'we' I mean Vortex minus debunkers. Small 's' skeptics are welcome, but
> de
ken deboer wrote:
>
> Admittedly, I have not read anywhere near all the papers available (and
> don't understand most of them very well anyway) but It seems like it could
> be fruitful to initiate a new 'Symposium' that the experts could
> occasionally contribute a piece to
> .
>
That is what
Eric Walker wrote:
> We assume here that in general LENR researchers are competent overall.
> One should just accept this as a ground rule. . . .
>
Yes. They are professionals, after all. Before they did cold fusion no one
thought they were not experts. That is not to say that every single
pro
I'd venture to make a suggestion, or request. Not to disparage or
discourage all that goes on here, but to encourage also maybe a slight veer
to the left (right?). Admittedly, I have not read anywhere near all the
papers available (and don't understand most of them very well anyway) but
It seem
If the commercialization of LENR were to resolve on the single issue of cost
of the active metal host, the winner would likely be counterintuitive, based
on present assumptions.
Palladium these days sells for $ 708/oz or about $25 gram.
Nickel-62 - "request a quote" the price is highly dependent o
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:39 AM, leaking pen wrote:
The standard skepticism that any scientist should have, wishing to explore,
> to look at the evidence, to experiment and refine, is , from what I've
> seen, welcome here. What is not is blindly saying, THis cannot be true, and
> then, THEN, aft
Are the fine details of the Toyota experimental set up known? Has anyone
tried to replicate that configuration?
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Others said that the Toyota research and the NEDO program were stopped
> because "progress was too slow" (I agree), and "we dete
"I think many people have expressed highly skeptical view of BLP, Rossi and
others here. I think most of this skepticism is justified!" -- Jed Rothwell
So, here's two cases where Joshua Cude and Jed Rothwell concur about
evidence.
The claims about Toyota's successes are indeed extraordinary evid
The standard skepticism that any scientist should have, wishing to explore,
to look at the evidence, to experiment and refine, is , from what I've
seen, welcome here. What is not is blindly saying, THis cannot be true, and
then, THEN, after deciding something is false, going about poking every
hole
I have often cited this paper, which describes the final results from
Toyota's lab in France:
Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. *Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments
Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
Progress in New Hydrogen Energy*. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido,
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
> > write about it?
>
> Which would be in violation of Rule 2, as well.
>
> It seems that anything (to put it politely) is on-topic here but
> a critical view on LENR. Tha
Jones Beene wrote:
There is plenty of room to be skeptical that LENR will ever get to market.
> Cude was correct on that point. I think that airing alternative viewpoints
> on the subject of what it takes for commercialization can be quite
> productive for the future of the field.
Exactly right
Vorl Bek wrote:
> Cude's demeanor was consistently polite . . .
I disagree. I think it is rude for him not to address substantive points
raised by others, such as McKubre Fig. 1. Also, for example, he asked a
legitimate question:
"In any case, my question was really why don't *all* intelligen
Vorl, it is impossible to decide if CF is real based on the kind of
reasoning you give below or by listening to a discussion between Cude
and anyone else. The level of the discussion is so superficial to be
useless. I wrote an entire book in order to place the evidence in one
place and to s
There is plenty of room to be skeptical that LENR will ever get to market.
Cude was correct on that point. I think that airing alternative viewpoints
on the subject of what it takes for commercialization can be quite
productive for the future of the field. But of course, even discussing that
is not
Vorl Bek wrote:
> From reading the exchanges here and on other forums, I have the
> impression (my 'verdict') that the evidence for lenr is
> either:
>
> anecdotal ('all the water boiled out of the bucket!';'there
> was a terrific explosion!' - that sort of report), but that the
> events can not
I second the summary observations by Vorl Bek:
"Cude's demeanor was consistently polite; the several people he
was up against were rather less polite in many instances, and one
of them was downright churlish.
None of them seemed to me to be as convincing as Cude was.
>From reading the exchanges
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
> > write about it?
>
> Which would be in violation of Rule 2, as well.
>
Not at all. You can see many harsh critiques of cold fusion theory and
experiments here in recent weeks, such as the debates b
On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:12:56 -0400
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
> write about it?
I don't know very much about this business and I can not debate it,
but I consider myself to be like a juror listening to the
testimony of experts: I
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 09:12:56AM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Vorl Bek wrote:
>
>
> > While I enjoy a True Believer
> > site as much as anyone, after a while it is like eating nothing
> > but dessert - you need some meat and potatoes in the form of
> > articulate skeptics.
> >
>
> If you thin
Believers without Skeptics are blandly blind.
Skeptics without Believers are blindly sterile.
The forever fecund spontaneous creativity of the "present" moment is not
bound in the least by any binding limits of spaces, times, causalities,
"separate" identities, perceptions, concepts, emotions, lo
I think we need to consider two types of skeptics. If a person does
not even believe the validity of the subject being discussed, what can
that skeptic contribute. If CF is not real, what is the point of
discussing why or how it works? The second kind of skeptics works by
considering the b
I wrote:
but dessert - you need some meat and potatoes in the form of
>> articulate skeptics.
>>
>
> If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
> write about it?
>
I would not call Cude "articulate." As McKubre often says, I could do a
better job as a cold fusion skep
Vorl Bek wrote:
> While I enjoy a True Believer
> site as much as anyone, after a while it is like eating nothing
> but dessert - you need some meat and potatoes in the form of
> articulate skeptics.
>
If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
write about it?
- Je
On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:53:29 -0500
Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> I'm not interested in an inaccessible (non-archived) list like vortex-b, so
> I'll just slink away. I may post a few responses to Rothwell's latest
> replies over on wavewatching.net/fringe if they tolerate it.
>
> Otherwise, adios. It's
37 matches
Mail list logo
