[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

I'm not sure what work you are referring to: This one had an open top and claimed excess heat. https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTproduction.pdf Here's one where he had a top on it and showed mostly no excess heat, but supposedly excess hydrogen. The alleged episodes of excess heat are

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

Thank you. If true, that refutes my point about his work being debunked. On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jack Cole wrote: > > We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive. I believe that the >> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

Jack Cole wrote: We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive. I believe that the > falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling > to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments > were likely compromised. > I did, at the time. I

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

I wrote: > You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted >> above. >> > > I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to > explain why. > I should at least explain the main reasons. Mizuno did not use the same method of calorimetry Kowalski

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive. I believe that the falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments were likely compromised. This reminds me of the profs who refused to

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

Jack Cole wrote: > Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the > paper I linked > to in the > previous email, his work has been debunked. > I strongly disagree. > He [Piantelli] supposedly was going to

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jack Cole wrote: > > >> Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected >> papers conducted by academics) . . . >> > > Parkhomov maybe. I don't know if he a professional, and he never > published. I meant published

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

Jack Cole wrote: > Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected > papers conducted by academics) . . . > Parkhomov maybe. I don't know if he a professional, and he never published. I meant published results in the scientific literature. > , possibly Brillouin

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 6:51 AM Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jack Cole wrote: > > We've seen errors this big before. >> > > I do not think so. Rossi apparently made errors this big, and much bigger: > 1 MW. (I think this was fraud, not error.) But I do not know recall any > professional scientist who

RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

Jack, When your post came through, I was thinking about the simple experiments you did some time ago with nickel and nitinol and whether or not anything from the recent Mizuno reports could be transposed to simple electrolysis experiments, in general. It could be worth thinking about.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

Jack Cole wrote: We've seen errors this big before. > I do not think so. Rossi apparently made errors this big, and much bigger: 1 MW. (I think this was fraud, not error.) But I do not know recall any professional scientist who has published a paper which was later shown to have errors on this

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

: > > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Dave Roberson > *Sent: *Friday, June 28, 2019 1:40 PM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake >

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

I wrote: > During a bake-out at high temperature, no contamination from the the cell > walls or the gasket get into the gas. If the gasket were Cu, and some of it > got into the gas, you would know. During and after a bake-out you run > samples of gas through the mass spec. > As I wrote

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

Dave Roberson wrote: > With further reading I see that some thin gasket was used. I answered my > own question. Of course the type of material is very critical for anyone > wanting to replicate the experiment. > I do not think the gasket material is critical to replicating the experiment.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

JonesBeene wrote: But what about other kinds of testing? (non thermal) > > > Is there any data from radiation testing, mass spectrometry (appearance of > helium) spectroscopy (Balmer line broadening), film, silver activation or > any kind of non-thermal anomaly which would bolster the case? >