[Vo]:Energy From Fusion In Two Years, CEO Says, Commercialization In Five

Energy From Fusion In Two Years, CEO Says, Commercialization In Five Jeff McMahon https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/01/14/private-firm-will-bring-fusion-reactor-to-market-within-five-years-ceo-says/#4b64b0591d4a Jeff McMahon Contributor Green Tech >From Chicago, I write about

Re: [Vo]:Energy From Fusion In Two Years, CEO Says, Commercialization In Five

My prediction is that for the next 20 years there will be gigantic fraud scams in Fusion engineering. Like this one. Scientists have discovered how to milk the fear and greed of billionaires and it aint gonna be pretty. On 1/14/19, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Energy From Fusion In Two Ye

[Vo]:Rare cosmological events recorded in muscovite mica.

Rare cosmological events recorded in muscovite mica. F. M. Russell, School of Computing and Engineering University of Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, U.K. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2f7ad4fe6232404eca928274d022ca00dbd699f1790550d820b93ccbca7c61a7.png Figure 1. Scan of sheet of muscovite show

[Vo]:Google, University of Maryland File Patent based on ‘High Density Electron Clouds’

Google, University of Maryland File Patent based on ‘High Density Electron Clouds’ Posted on February 7, 2019 • 12 Comments Thanks to Max Nozin for referencing a new patent application (published February 7th, 2019) filed by Google Inc. and the University of Maryland, College Park on Aug 3, 2017.

[Vo]:GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source I'm setting up a GoFundMe campaign to buy a gamma spectrometer and go to London to test these cells, per Alan's invitation. It would make sense for someone more qualified to make the visit , take the measurements, and generate

[Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

https://www.gofundme.com/8nmynh-geiger?teamInvite=WC66VANcJqCD05UmM6byRPSAQOc6WHY1zMnMFDuwZkswE1QewWCy5ezPYj5IT06O On 5/11/19, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source > > > I'm setting up a GoFundMe campaign to buy a gam

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

hrough these online sites like > GoFundMe, this effort may not generate much interest - and even if it did, > wouldn’t it be more credible to use an expert in spectrometry to do the > measurements – preferably one associated with the maker of the equipment or > with a Univer

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

generate much interest - and even if it did, > wouldn’t it be more credible to use an expert in spectrometry to do the > measurements – preferably one associated with the maker of the equipment or > with a University? > > Jones > > > From: Kevin O'Malley > > ht

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

Budgetary quote request: Gamma Spectrometer and Training Inbox Add star Kevin O'Malley Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:17 AM To: sa...@kromek.com Bcc: kevmol...@gmail.com Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original Hello Kromek: I'm interested in purchasing one of your

[Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source Inbox Unstarred Kevin O'Malley Sat, May 11, 2019 at 8:30 PM 7 hidden messages – Show Unstarred Kevin O'Malley Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:16 AM Add star AlanG<&&&&&&am

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

past attempts to fund LENR through these online sites like > GoFundMe, this effort may not generate much interest - and even if it did, > wouldn’t it be more credible to use an expert in spectrometry to do the > measurements – preferably one associated with the maker of the equipment or &

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

accept money then I'll post that little tidbit and decide where else to go. And if anyone has demonstrated mental instability, it is Russ George. So... back to your regularly scheduled programming. On 5/17/19, russ.geo...@gmail.com wrote: > Kevin O'Malley seems to be running under

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

Uhh, Jed I proposed explicitly that YOU would be more suited to go and test but you declined. Alan S said that it would take $1000 for a gamma spectrometer, but he's off by 10X. Let's just apply that coefficient elsewhere, shall we? I think it'll take $5k to train me. Applying Allan's in

Re: [Vo]:GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

hint is that the invitation to test has been rescinded. Help spread the word! On 5/18/19, AlanG wrote: > A week ago I wrote this to Kevin O'Malley off-list, regarding his > mention of MFMP: > > "/MFMP always welcomes donations and we have a 501c3 which could make > such con

Re: [Vo]:GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

Kevin has not replied to my message, and his intentions are unclear. *** My initial statements were in public rather than in private. To be candid, the paragraph you wrote to me privately right before this one you're quoting , well that paragraph kinda sets the tone. And since it's done in priva

Re: [Vo]:GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

ng as there is silence, there is no offer to test gammas. It's just career-ending bullshit. On 5/18/19, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > >> Jed is >> already posted in as willing to do it for a cool $million. That >> makes me look cheap i

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

rward to test gammas and actually finds them will probably find his career over. That's gotta be worth $100k. And that's why no one is stepping forward to overcome the ... bullshit. On 5/18/19, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > Uhh, Jed I proposed expl

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

aining is cheap compared to trying to get some "credible expert " whose career is gonna be over as soon as he announces he found gammas. Those are the 5 elements. , Willingness, time, capability, wherewithal and bullshit. On 5/18/19, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: >

Re: [Vo]:Planckian dissipation phenomenon

If time is determined by the speed of light, how would you determine which packets were generated first? Would they be going by some other limiting speed agent other than C? On 5/12/19, H LV wrote: > If one can build a transmitter and a receiver to transmit and detect wave > packets travelling w

Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo Posted on 1/23/2010, 12:28:49 PM by Kevmo Freeper gets a fascinating contract listed on Intrade, bets that the experiment will be replicated, and cashes i

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

om/~kevmo/>(some things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl) [ Post Reply <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/reply?c=32> | Private Reply <https://freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3968011.32;reftype=comment> | To 31 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/c

[Vo]:A Super New Theory to Explain Superconductivity

*A Super New Theory to Explain Superconductivity* *Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism ^ *| 5 July 2021 | Hiroyasu Koizumi Posted on *7/11/2021, 7:26:10 AM*

Re: [Vo]:Thermacore and the missing link to the Kervran effect

Thermacore came very close to the big time when they were granted a patent for a solid state thermal diode. Hagelstein was one of the inventors. Yet another mystery in this field. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6396191 Thermal diode for energy conversion Abstract Solid state thermionic

Re: [Vo]:Thermacore and the missing link to the Kervran effect

That paper is very "vortician". Right up our alley. The possible explaining of some controversial effects by a *vortexial* atom model Volume 4 Issue 2 - 2020 Marius Arghirescu State Office for Inventions and Trademarks, Patents Department, Romania Correspondence: Marius Arghirescu, State Offi

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

7426/reply?c=19> | Private Reply <https://freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3977426.19;reftype=comment> | View Replies <https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3977426/replies?c=19> | Report Abuse <https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3977426/abuse?c=19>] On Thu, Jun 17, 20

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

regarding “A “linear BEC” sounds rather like the “hydroton” model of Edmund Storms” https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3981264/posts?page=15#15 -- A Bose Einstein Condensate is when a group of atoms start acting like one atom, in concert. Lots of hints that what

[Vo]:Physicists Create Long Sought ‘Wigner Crystal’

*Physicists Create a Bizarre ‘Wigner Crystal’ Made Purely of Electrons ... The unambiguous discovery of a Wigner crystal relied on a novel technique for probing the insides of complex materials.* *https://www.quantamagazine.org ^

[Vo]:New High-Performance Solid-State Battery Surprises the Engineers Who Created It

New High-Performance Solid-State Battery Surprises the Engineers Who Created It TOPICS:Battery TechnologyEnergyNanotechnologyUCSD By UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - SAN DIEGO SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 https://scitechdaily.com/new-high-performance-solid-state-battery-surprises-the-engineers-who-created-it/ New

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered: Rossi

Here is an updated example of threadjacking by way of bringing up Rossi. https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3999491/posts?page=41#41 On 1/19/14, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > There seems to be another thing that skeptopaths engage in. They try to > turn any LENR discussion into Andrea Ro

Re: [Vo]:Outreach for discussion on Znidarsic-Smith genuine UFO reverse engineering using causal reasoning

If you really want to get down to the "natural forces" behind flying saucers, just read ONE book: Renato Vesco's "Intercept UFO". https://www.amazon.com/Intercept-UFO-Renato-Vesco/dp/B0006WI572 It outlines the aerodynamic theories and technology of Ludwig Prandtl and Oscar Schrenk & how those app

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

Moving The Goalposts Skeptopaths constantly move the goalposts for LENR. This doesn't happen in any other area of science. https://www.lenr-forum.com/search-result/66261/?highlight=moving+goalposts On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM Kevin O'Malley wrote: > I'm growing

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

tely address the issue. Something is going on in this segment of science. There are a considerable number of research groups studying the matter. 19 posted on 7/19/2021, 6:45:09 PM by Sidebar Moderator [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse] On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:43 PM K

[Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical temperature

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > > > Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical temperature > > April 10, 2013 by Lisa Zyga > > Physicists created a BEC that can persist at up to 1.5 times hotter than > the critical

Re: [Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical temperature

In a personal correspondence, Y.E. Kim confirms that this BEC development gives his theory yet another leg up. Yes, high temperature BEC (HT-BEC) is possible with interacting Bosons which is capable of forming a BEC cluster. The arguments for requiring the very low T to form a BEC are valid

Re: [Vo]:The Sun as a NAE

On a prior thread, I think it was Jones Beene who suggested that reversible proton fusion was one of the better models for LENR. Jones BeeneFri, 05 Apr 2013 05:52:56 -0700

Re: [Vo]:Latest Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

Which paper is that? On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > His math is above my pay grade, but one > detail that seems to emerge is that there could exist a deeply redundant > ground state bound at 5 keV. It is a Klein-Gordon state and seems to have > turned up in an earlier pap

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Joshua Cude 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. How has the size of th

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude 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 > ordinary soil and tap

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com via 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

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

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 h

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

y you think so highly of this paper ;-) On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > >> In that paper by Johnson, they quote Craven & Letts. >> > > Cravens and Letts is here, by the way: > > http://www.lenr-canr

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

h Joshua we can build only parallel monologues not > a dialogue > > Peter > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com >> via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

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

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

r example of sneering. There's no real attempt to get to a working understanding. Researchers don't do things the way you like, so you call it pathological science. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Joshua Cude 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.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

the one who's deluded. These are labs & scientists, not journalists and homeopaths. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that l

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Joshua Cude 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 on N-rays; also all wro

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

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 wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kevin O'

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Joshua Cude 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 measure things, so they

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

jected by Scientific American because such progress was deemed impossible. The Wright brothers had to publish their results in a beekeepers journal. View shared post <https://www.google.com/#> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude 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 finding worth purs

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

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

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude 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 people don't lik

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

data in the same way that Galileo's detractors refused to look through the telescope. And yes, I do think it's because of their greed, self-interest, hubris and various other things. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kevin O&

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

ame 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 wrote: > >> A good example of t

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

classic fallacy, arguing from silence. In this case the silence is from the future, as if you knew what the future beheld. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> If Polywater is an example of

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell 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 >> 64 cells at a

[Vo]:Scientists must Study the Nuclear Weak Force to Better Understand LENR

Scientists must Study the Nuclear Weak Force to Better Understand LENR http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Scientists-must-Study-the-Nuclear-Weak-Force-to-Better-Understand-LENR.html By Daily Energy Report | Tue, 07 May 2013 21:33 | In the early part of the 20th Century physicist

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude 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 not pathologica

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

If intelligent people bought it, the skeptics would be the ones whose careers would be dragged through the mud. ***You proceed from an odd form of idealism. Scientists are human. > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, M

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > interlab reproducibility is still a bitch. > > > ***True enough, but that doesn't make it a pathological science. It makes it a difficult one.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > > That's a reflection of what mainstream science thinks of cold fusion. It > doesn't answer the question of why, if the proof is so obvious, > ***Interesting little conditional you've inserted here. The proof is not obvious but the evidenc

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is not credible. ***What a ridiculous line of reasoning. The evidence is credible, just like the evidence for plate tectonics was credible. Just because others didn't believ

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

eter incorrectly? You won't answer because you can't. Your position becomes more preposterous with each post. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

hua Cude wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now. >> ***I see you're changing your stance. Earlier you said it had stopped. >> >> > > Always be careful of

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > It's self evident that there are images of an unknown physical entity. > ***Wow, you put more credence into bigfoot than cold fusion. Amazing. Just amazing. Note that National Instruments DID NOT go out on a limb to say what you just did over

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> > Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me, > both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, ... > > In my vocabulary ... > > > ***Now that your position has been obliterated, you're movi

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

You mean you can't use that word? I did a search & found it 128 times on Vortex-L. Does that mean that all 128 times, those people were given a timeout? I don't see evidence of it. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: > On Thu, 9 May 2013 14:20:42 -0700 > &qu

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

Going back to my corner of LENR, if it were not credible then the replication of Dr. Arata's work would not have been published in Physics Letters A. You are not credible. On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> > > Who can deny that some of those photos are not explained? Therefore they > are images of an unknown physical entity. > > > ***You're trying to twist the original dispute, which is that National Instruments could have gone out on a limb

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >>> >> > > Sue me. I'm an anti-semantic. > > > I'm not saying cold fusion is bad because it's pathological. > > I call it pathological because it's bad. > ***Now you're back to your own Humpty Dumpty definitions. On top of that, you're being

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

been replicated 14,700 times as reported by another careful scientist. You're deluded. On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> So, Pons & Fleischmann were careless researchers, eh? >> &g

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: Hume said: "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence". ***Hume also wrote the following, which applies to Joshua Cude, who absurdly claims that Pons & Fleischmann were not careful electrochemical experimenters and that the P-F effec

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: To the Japanese in 1941, Americans seemed outlandish. To the skeptics who agree with Cude or Close, we are the ones disconnected from reality. We are illogical and even mentally ill thinking that we can "fuse hydrogen in a mason jar." I do not

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

rior and archly hostile results, and at the sort of "Skeptic" who angrily disbelieves all that is not solidly proved true, while carefully rejecting all new data and observations which conflict with the widely accepted theories of the time. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Jed Roth

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

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. Sm

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

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.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

lications are considered "obvious". And what the chances of generating false-positives are. From my readings, the number of true false positives appears to be far less than 1/100. Perhaps Ed can shed some light on this. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O&#

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Kevin O'Malley wrote: >> >>> >>> ***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread. If >>> one considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess >>>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

Interesting paper. Here's why 'experts' reject cold fusion after reading the paper: the last sentence. While the type of nuclear reactions resulting in the observed tritium is as yet unknown, cold fusion of deuterium atoms in the Pd lattice has to be ruled out due to the observation of a very s

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

In ruling out d+d fusion due to a lack of neutrons, our expert has placed theory above evidence. ***That's what many experts do, and it is what they did. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> Whi

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not > that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 > orders of magnitude." > > Fun, except he d

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

ght. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> What it represents is the probability that ALL of the replications were >> the result of error. It is exceedingly small. >> > > No. That

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

at 2:36 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: >> >>> >>> Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memora

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

oops, I meant to say thousands of orders of magnitude On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other > thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times > and they yielded 14

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley > wrote: > >> No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other >> thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times >> and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

> You, on the other hand, are saying there may be an artifact that causes > problems with instruments perfected in the 19th and early 20th centuries. > Instruments which have been used in millions of experiments and real world > applications. You are saying this artifact has never been observed in

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

Jed: So you need only look at the positive results, and estimate the likelihood that every one of them was caused by incompetent researchers making mistakes. ***That is what I've been saying all along. Note how Joshua Cude just glides over it. The hallmark of a skeptopath is how disingenuous the

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

Again: ". . . it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were misreads." On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude wrote: > That's what I said: you're calculating the probability for all tries to be > su

Re: [Vo]:skepticism versus Debunkers

Then do we ban the debunker on the 3rd time? 4th time? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80212.html On 5/16/13, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Daniel Rocha > wrote: > > That's still against the rules, no matter how polite and beliefs, which are >> agains

Re: [Vo]:Undiscovered error hypothesis

It must be emphasized that although cold fusion results are surprising, the techniques are conventional and instruments are used within their design specifications. ***This means that Cold Fusion doesn't really qualify as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. It is basically an or

Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released

>From the report, an interesting explanation of testing delays: The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a similar model of the *E-Cat HT *on the same premises. In that experiment the device was

Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released

This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field. ***I agree. Here's the primary takeaway: "Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources." That means Rossi c

Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response

>From the report, an interesting explanation : The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a similar model of the *E-Cat HT *on the same premises. In that experiment the device was destroyed in th

[Vo]:H202 fake

Alan: Why did you never address the H2O2 fake on your website? How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real Alan Fletcher Version 3.14, April 6, 2011 http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v314.php On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: > Final Plot -- based on

Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published

Jed, it is often grand & fascinating to read your take on history. We will have to buy many politicians. It is a small price to pay. ***From your characterizations of Rossi, I think perhaps he is not willing to pay this price. He has customers, he will sell to them until it becomes so overwhelmin

Re: [Vo]:Proximate Significance of the E-Cat HT Paper

The candidate who wishes to become the next in line after Obama would be wise to get on this bandwagon at an early stage. However, that candidate will probably have to stand up against Big Oil, early-on - since any expedited effort to get LENR into production will hurt hat industry eventually but m

Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response

The important consideration is the business risk of the event and "melt down" has a business risk characterized by the destruction not only of the capital investment but substantial externalities such as radioactive environmental pollution damages in the billions of dollars. ***Based upon what I ha

Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response

No one knows, because the only guy with the data (Rossi) is so secretive. And all of us can understand why. The best available evidence suggests that there is a danger of radioactive release. But that will be stepped over like the local republican Roman children who complained when Julius Caesar

Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response

Not necessarily during runaway mode, but startup mode. I predict that as COP increases, this effect will increase. It is a double-edged sword. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: > So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of > what type? X-rays and/or

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >