At 04:57 PM 2/26/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, me calling them fringe does not make it so. But if people who
work on fringe science represent a fringe group, then it is not really a
matter of opinion.
As long
From Abd:
...
Younger scientists are becoming educated in what actually
happened in 1989-1990.
...
The skepticism is most entrenched among physicists, who
seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that there might be
something happening that they don't understand.
The irony here is that
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:45 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
The irony here is that encountering phenomenon that is not currently
understood (according to current accepted theory) is precisely what
physicists ought to yearn for in their professional lives.
At 10:45 AM 2/28/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
From Abd:
...
Younger scientists are becoming educated in what actually
happened in 1989-1990.
...
The skepticism is most entrenched among physicists, who
seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that there might be
something happening
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
This is not a fringe group. [...]
To put it bluntly, who the hell are you to call these people fringe? The
fact that you call distinguished scientists a fringe group does not make
them a fringe group.
Obviously,
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
If the effect were real, it would not stall at the marginal level.
Many cold fusion results are marginal, but others are not. Even in 1989
there were many dramatic heat events and some tritium
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, me calling them fringe does not make it so. But if people who
work on fringe science represent a fringe group, then it is not really a
matter of opinion.
As long as we are expressing our opinions, IMO, those
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, me calling them fringe does not make it so. But if people who
work on fringe science represent a fringe group, then it is not really a
Joshua Cude wrote:
What I know doesn't matter, but it is very clear that most people who
know as much about tritium as your stars, don't believe the
measurements, or at least don't believe they come from cold fusion.
That is incorrect. There is no published papers from experts in tritium
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
What I know doesn't matter, but it is very clear that most people who know
as much about tritium as your stars, don't believe the measurements, or at
least don't believe they come from cold fusion.
Joshua Cude wrote:
Scientists don't waste time publishing papers to point out errors or
express doubt in a phenomenon only a fringe group takes seriously.
This is not a fringe group. Look at the people I listed in previous
messages in this thread:
Roland A. Jalbert of Los Alamos and the
Joshua Cude wrote:
If the effect were real, it would not stall at the marginal level.
Many cold fusion results are marginal, but others are not. Even in 1989
there were many dramatic heat events and some tritium production at
extraordinarily high signal to noise ratios. There were solid
At 02:46 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
You seem to know something about this research. Surely you have read
McKubre, Fleischmann and Storms and seen the graphs. Yet you persist
in calling these results marginal. You are either technically
illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances
Just a comment to Jed and Abd, and a few other patient participants.
I've enjoyed being a spectator to this thread. I guess that makes me
somewhat of a sadist.
By all means continue clarifying all the misconceptions being spewed
out from this particular thread. Many of you have harder skulls
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Yet you persist in calling these results marginal. You are either
technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances at the
graph on the front page at
http://lenr-canr.org/index.htmlhttp://lenr-canr.org will see you
are wrong.
That's P13/P14. There is
I wrote:
However, I just meant that the margin of error bars are marked at the bottom
of the graph along with the blue line for light water, and the red heavy
water line is far above that margin.
Plus, PLUS! the red line is beautifully correlated with a control factor,
current density. You
At 04:30 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Yet you persist in calling these results marginal. You are
either technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who
glances at the graph on the front page at
http://lenr-canr.org/index.htmlhttp://lenr-canr.org will see
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely it has been realized by now that it's not likely to be Mr.
Rothwell, or Mr. Lomax, or anybody on this list that possesses an
arsenal of information accurate enough to blast a hole through this
At 04:44 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
However, I just meant that the margin of error bars are marked at
the bottom of the graph along with the blue line for light water,
and the red heavy water line is far above that margin.
Plus, PLUS! the red line is beautifully correlated
At 04:44 PM 2/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Plus, PLUS! the red line is beautifully correlated with a control
factor, current density. You can see that at a glance. A correlation
is an important way to separate noise from meaningful data.
McKubre once wrote that he could do a much better job
At 04:25 PM 2/25/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Just a comment to Jed and Abd, and a few other patient participants.
[...]
Surely it has been realized by now that it's not likely to be Mr.
Rothwell, or Mr. Lomax, or anybody on this list that possesses an
arsenal of information
On 02/25/2011 04:06 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But what about the hydrogen control? Well, the skeptical mind will
assert, hydrogen bubbles are twice as bouyant as deuterium bubbles, so
the noise is less
Er, no.
The buoyancy is due to the difference between the density of the
On 02/25/2011 04:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Yet you persist in calling these results marginal. You are either
technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances at the
graph on the front page at
http://lenr-canr.org/index.htmlhttp://lenr-canr.org will
At 09:28 PM 2/25/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/25/2011 04:06 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But what about the hydrogen control? Well, the skeptical mind will
assert, hydrogen bubbles are twice as bouyant as deuterium bubbles, so
the noise is less
Er, no.
The buoyancy is due
At 09:36 PM 2/25/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/25/2011 04:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Yet you persist in calling these results marginal. You are either
technically illiterate, or you are a liar. Anyone who glances at the
graph on the front page at
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
Most of those things are tools, and I believe in them like I believe in
hammers. But no matter how much you believe in hammers, it doesn't mean you
can build a house.
Let me spell out what you
Joshua Cude wrote:
Most of those things are tools, and I believe in them like I believe
in hammers. But no matter how much you believe in hammers, it doesn't
mean you can build a house.
Let me spell out what you believe. You may not agree, but here are the
implications of what you are
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
A web search for JC yields MWCude.com, an engineering firm in Texas.
But that VP named Joshua Cude shows no history of having an interest
in CF that I can find. No other Joshua Cude figures prominently
28 matches
Mail list logo
