[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

[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