On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
or rather, why do nearly all intelligent people reject it.
I know a lot about this, because I have access to the traffic data at
LENR-CANR.org. The answer is:
reply on
Has there even been a single P-F DPd electrolysis cell running anywhere in
the world in 2013?
When was the last month and year that one was being run?
When was the last month and year in which one showed any anomaly?
About how much did these runs cost?
How carefully were they described in
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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 think
I wrote:
Look, top admirals such as Yamamoto and our invincible soldiers have
never lost a war in 6,000 years. . . .
I meant 2,600 years. That was the claim, made in 1940. They held a big
celebration, and informally named the zero fighter airplane after the
last 2 digits (00). Supposedly.
I
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
or rather, why do nearly all intelligent people reject it.
I know a lot about this, because I have access to the traffic data at
LENR-CANR.org. The answer is:
1. Most intelligent people do not reject cold fusion, or accept it. Most
people have no
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
**
**
I believe that this lack of civility and fair play makes the
'extraordinary evidence' concept into nonsense.
Civility has nothing to do with it. When evidence competes, the strongest
evidence is taken more
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
When blood transfusions were first tried (in 17th century?) some were a
success and some ended in deaths and nobody knew why. It wasn't explained
until the discovery of blood typing in the early 20th century. Until
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
**
[medical anecdotes]
If you're on of those who rejects evidence-based medicine in favor of
anecdotal tales of cures from a vague sense of unease, then it's no
surprise you are sucked in to the cold fusion vortex.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
However, if a minority of the intelligentsia judge the evidence is
compelling it does not give the majority the right to portray the minority
as stupid or delusional or as practicing pathological science.
The right to
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
History is full of large groups of intelligent people who made ignorant
errors leading to disasters. Especially military history. Examples include:
Yet you insist it's impossible for a group of cold fusion
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The answer is that people often make drastic mistakes. Even intelligent
people do.
Even cold fusion researchers do.
It was not obvious because these people were blinded by emotion. So are
the people opposed to
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to explore this dreadful history a little more, because I
know a lot about it.
Certainly not because it has any relevance.
What you're saying is that two countries are at war, one claims they will
crush
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude wrote:
That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and
neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove PF were right.
[...]
No one says that tritium proves that PF's claims of excess heat is
By 'we' I mean Vortex minus debunkers. Small 's' skeptics are welcome, but
debunkers are not. 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.
Vortex rules:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
just delusioned and selectively blind like what roland benabou describe
I think groupthink is a much better explanation for belief in cold fusion
than it is for skepticism. Mainstream science is an extremely diverse
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude not only fails to see this pattern, he mixes up two numbers:
The claim that high loading is correlated to claims of excess heat was made
early on, but that bit of alleged intelligence has done nothing to help
with
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The role of correlation and real-world control factors is often
overlooked, even by supporters. This is critically important. Cold fusion
heat with the Pd-D system is correlated with several control factors,
including:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Cude: I missed the obligatory tritium is claimed to be
detected, and no even if it's detected, there could be contamination,
accidental or deliberate.
That is an absurd cop-out. There are dozens of
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude wrote:
After 24 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in
the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results,
whether it's excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:
plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't answer the question.
***Of course it does.
The question was why don't intelligent people believe cold fusion.
If the mainstream
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
interlab reproducibility is still a bitch.
***True enough, but that doesn't make it a pathological science. It makes
it a difficult one.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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,
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is
not credible.
***What a ridiculous line of reasoning.
It's what the
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
So, Pons Fleischmann were careless researchers, eh?
Yes, sadly.
Then how is it that their findings have been replicated 14,700 times?
They weren't
How did they become 2 of the most preeminent electrochemists of
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
At least I know how to spell his name.
***Gee, that's about as semantically irrelevant as an argument can get.
Lighten up. It was a gentle poke, since you were chiding me on not being as
great as Arata.
He
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
It's self evident that there are images of an unknown physical entity.
***Wow, you put more credence into bigfoot than cold fusion.
Who can
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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,
Walker wrote:
Yes, definitely -- conflation is a critical mistake, but it is most
likely to occur when it is convenient for one's position. Throw perpetual
motion machines, homeopathy, polywater and cold fusion all into the same
category. It does not matter that there appear to be basic
Rothwell wrote: Cude and others conflate many different assertions and
issues. They stir everything into one pot. You have to learn to
compartmentalize with cold fusion, or with any new phenomenon or poorly
understood subject.
That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium
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 joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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,
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
That's a reflection of what mainstream science thinks of cold
Sidenote:
I'm reminded of one of the great one-liners (and I believe it was uttered
by someone on this list if I;m not mistaken:
The difference between connecting the dots and conflation is spin
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Rothwell wrote: Cude
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't
intelligent people accept it?
Why are some intelligent people racist?
Has to do with self-interest, I think. But it is in nearly everyone's
or rather, why do nearly all intelligent people reject it.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:
The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't
intelligent
I believe there are documented, well attested cases in which some opponents of
cold fusion actually refused to read or consider the evidence - or said that
they would disbelieve anything reported in its support. This is not unusual.
Sheldrake politely reports the same sort of behavior in
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
.
But it's difficult to come up with a phenomenon on the scale of cold
fusion that was rejected for decades and was later vindicated. There is, as
described in Hagelstein's essay, Semmelweis, and to a lesser degree
In order to see things the way you do, you ask that 2 of the most careful
electrochemists made fundamentally careless measurements. That the
physicists who tried the experiments and had no colorimetry experience were
able to be more careful than these 2 careful dudes. And that the effect
has not
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it
Cude wrote:
That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and
neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove PF were right.
You just conflated two unrelated things!
No one says that tritium proves that PF's claims of excess heat is
correct. Tritium cannot prove that
It is well that you bring up the subject of medical procedure (transfusions)
because this area is loaded with egregious examples of verifiable facts that
are ignored - often due to prejudice and moneyed interests.
My doctor marvels at my dramatic improvement in blood chemistry but denies that
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:
The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't
intelligent people accept it?
Why are some intelligent people
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't
intelligent people accept it?
Why are some intelligent people racist?
Indeed. Willful ignorant often plays a role, as it does in cold fusion.
Many of the people most stridently opposed
Then there's Dr. Simoncini ( cancerfungus.com ) that cures cancer with
baking soda, but that's too cheap to be credible :-) .
From: Chris Zell [mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:27 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
It is well
Cude wrote:
Has to do with self-interest, I think. But it is in nearly everyone's
self-interest for cold fuison to be real. And in any case, my question was
really why don't *all* intelligent people accept it.
In 1941, U.S. Adm. Stark said to the Japanese envoy Nomura:
If you attack us we
It usually transpires that, if some treatment is natural ( unpatentable) or
inexpensive, it will never be investigated or established as factual within the
medical community.
I first caught on to this while reading thru Pub Med and Index Medica
documents. It was suggested that polyunsaturated
I wrote:
The fact that the war could only end with that kind of disaster (or
earlier with an unconditional surrender) should have been obvious to every
Japanese leader from the Emperor down to every town mayor.
I would like to explore this dreadful history a little more, because I know
a
Apparently, you have presented a true example (Park et al) of pathological
science !
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
There are differences of course. Identical analogies serve no purpose.
I think they're the most powerful. :)
I assume we all agree that homeopathy and polywater and perpetual motion
are bogus. And so when someone
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Of course it is erratic. The only question is: Is it erratic because of
random error or because the required conditions are not created every time.
We now know that certain critical conditions are required, which are
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
You need positive credible evidence to convince people that cold fusion
is real. And there isn't any.
It's a little painful to watch this
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
any real-life scientist claiming that you can work on cold fusion without
ruining your career is...
LYING.
That's a reflection of what mainstream science thinks of cold fusion. It
doesn't answer the question of
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Plate tectonics were accepted when the evidence became overwhelming,
particularly the fossil and seismologic evidence. Yes, it took a a long
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were accepted.
there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before.
Maybe much before they were universally accepted. Support grew with the
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
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 Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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 context, semantics, and qualifiers.
In the context of giving
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad to hear that NI donated a PCMCIA card. Did they go out on a limb
and say (as with Cold Fusion) There is an unknown physical event?
Nope.
It's self evident that there are images of an unknown physical entity.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
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
2013/5/9 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
don't cite semiconductors.
or please re-read the history of the conductance anomalies or Germanium.
One of the many reason that make me accept the LENr papers is Germanium
histpry (and please, read the real history, not the wiki-revisionist
history)
please read.
what have stagnated is your knowledge.
illiteracy is a serious disease.
ok i'm joking, you are clearly literate, just delusioned and selectively
blind like what roland benabou describe
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf
you are not alone, it
It is well-known that people engaged in wishful thinking often see patterns
where there are none. This is why a gambler believes in a lucky talisman.
It is less often noted that people in extreme denial sometimes look at a
clear pattern and fail to see it. Any reasonable person looking at McKubre
polywater artifact were proven...
LENr is proven, tritium, he4, many factor are studied.
don' use manipulation techniques, it is shameful of someone working in
scientific domain.
I work in corp and I know the techniques.
LENr in hydrides is LENR in hydrides. it is proven, yen not understood.
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
It is experuimental anomalies, proven far below 50sigma, with many kind of
anomalies proven, correlation with real-world factors and not with possible
artifact source...
The role of correlation and real-world control factors is often overlooked,
On May 9, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It is well-known that people engaged in wishful thinking often see
patterns where there are none. This is why a gambler believes in a
lucky talisman. It is less often noted that people in extreme denial
sometimes look at a clear pattern and
On May 9, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
It is experuimental anomalies, proven far below 50sigma, with many
kind of anomalies proven, correlation with real-world factors and
not with possible artifact source...
The role of correlation
From: Joshua Cude
Kevin, You just drove a stake through the heart of one of
the silliest arguments on record.
Cude: Tritium is detected at levels below what is necessary
to explain excess heat
Who cares? TRITIUM IS DETECTED ! Get
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
* Heat appears with D but not H.
This is not true. Heat has been measured when H is used.
Only a few people have detected heat with Pd-H. Fleischmann found marginal
heat, and you reported some. Let me put this way: heat comes a lot more
readily
On May 9, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
* Heat appears with D but not H.
This is not true. Heat has been measured when H is used.
Only a few people have detected heat with Pd-H. Fleischmann found
marginal heat, and you reported some.
Cude said
“The evidence for cold fusion is a dog's breakfast of inconsistent claims
of excess heat and various products of nuclear reaction. After 24 years,
there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and
get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it's
Cude wrote:
After 24 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in
the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results,
whether it's excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive
result).”
Yes, there is. It was published in 1996. See:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:
plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were
accepted.
there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't answer the question.
***Of course it does.
It just establishes the failure of the evidence.
***No, it establishes the real reason why intelligent people don't get
involved in Cold Fusion.
The reason for the
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
interlab reproducibility is still a bitch.
***True enough, but that doesn't make it a pathological science. It makes
it a difficult one.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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
So, Pons Fleischmann were careless researchers, eh? Then how is it that
their findings have been replicated 14,700 times? How did they become 2 of
the most preeminent electrochemists of their day before they took on this
anomaly?How careless do you have to be to read a thermometer
At least I know how to spell his name.
***Gee, that's about as semantically irrelevant as an argument can get.
He has considerable stature, yes. I don't know how much of that is
justified, but it is certainly not due to his work in cold fusion.
***It was due to his work in Nuclear Physics.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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,
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Once again you're trying to conflate tritium with heat. Forget 1989, take a
deep breath and focus only on the tritium findings at Los Alamos.
And a lot of other places too! TAMU and the National Cold Fusion Institute
(NCFI) are good examples, and don't
On Thu, 9 May 2013 14:20:42 -0700
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com 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
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 vorl@antichef.com wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2013 14:20:42 -0700
Kevin
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
Admin: any chance you can ban this fellow for a while? In several
of his recent posts, he has descended far below the bar for
decency you set up for this list.
Oh come now! Cude isn't that bad.
- Jed
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Conflate is the key word here. This is important! It is a mistake people
on both sides make.
Yes, definitely -- conflation is a critical mistake, but it is most likely
to occur when it is convenient for one's position.
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 01:54:35PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
CF/LENR is not a giant effect. It is a phenomenon of Nature that is not
understood well enough to make large yet.
On rare occasions it has been large, when people used very large
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 12:24:43PM -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
As for concentrating on problems of reproducibility and
upscalability, I have tried to address these issues but with little
support.
Ed, since you claim you have running experiments with anomalous
heat in your home lab, have you
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:08:07PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Table 6 shows many selected studies with tritium. There is some overlap.
I regard tritium as proof that a nuclear reaction occurred. It is as
Definitely, and at 100 W sustained power your experiment will
soon breed enough curies to
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
Definitely, and at 100 W sustained power your experiment will
soon breed enough curies to kill you without sufficient
shielding.
Not with cold fusion. The ratio of tritium to heat is not the same with
cold fusion as it is with plasma fusion. The ratio is
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClaytorTNtritiumprob.pdf
This paper from LANL (and dozens of other papers on tritium) should erase
all doubts about tritium production - and also illuminate the major problem
in LENR.
Why doesn't Eugen avail himself of the online resources? This is 15 year old
Many people have visited my lab, Eugen. As for checking results, this
can only be done after the data are made available in a paper, which I
have done. Simply seeing a device making what is claimed to be energy
is a useless experience. The device is complex and not easy to analyze
simply
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
**
What he can't explain is why anyone would run around the internet trying
to stop people from investigating a phenomenon.
I think cold fusion is a pipe dream, and I like people to agree with me.
You can't seriously
It is a waste of energy to be against scientific investigation no matter how
you perceive the chance of success. It is a sign of the times, just like Parks
book Voodoo Science. It smacks of Dogma and Religious belief and the lack of
openmindedness. Go get a life.
Sent from my iPhone
On
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
This is often stated, but of course it's nonsense. Who could reject a
phenomenon that replaces fossil fuels? That powers a car without
refueling?
This is precisely my problem
I am amazed that religious zealotry persists without religion. Just part of
human nature, I guess. Or OCD.
No one expects the Spanish Inquistion
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude wrote:
You should keep an open mind to the possibility that cold fusion is not
the Wright brothers' airplane. Maybe it's Blondlott’s N-rays. It’s
Fedyakin’s polywater.
These things were never replicated. Only
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
***Hagelstein wrote this editorial shortly after having his latest LENR
experiment run for several MONTHS in his lab. How has the size of the
claimed effect gotten smaller, and how is that consistent with pathological
1 - 100 of 241 matches
Mail list logo
