Edmund Storms wrote:
>Occasionally, with
>the author's permission, Jed has attempted to make a paper more
>understandable.
Actually, I have done that fairly often for authors who speak English as a
second language -- with their permission and cooperation, of course! I have
worked with authors
At 08:04 AM 7/22/2007 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
Storms: "Since Swartz has once again brought up his obsession about
censorship at LENR ..."
Projection and ad hominem.
The ONLY obsession with censorship has been, and remains,
from Ed Storms, himself.
Rothwell even admitted that Storms ha
Since Swartz has once again brought up his obsession about censorship at
LENR, this gives me an opportunity to clarify the criteria used to put
papers on the LENR website. For the sake of this discussion, the website
has two parts: a listing of over 3000 papers having some relevance to
cold fus
At 11:55 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken
Shoulders
>still are censored.
Rothwell:
"Shoulders has never submitted a paper to me. As far as I know he has
never written on
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken Shoulders
>still are censored.
Shoulders has never submitted a paper to me. As far as I know he has never
written one about cold fusion. I do not think he or anyone else believes that
his "clusters"
Swartz has repeatedly accursed me of censoring his work. This is simply
not true. In fact, several weeks ago, Mitchell called me and during this
conversation I assured him that if he sent me his papers in a useable
format, I would see that they were placed on the website. In addition, Jed
a
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>As to the rest of his crap and continual put downs, I will not respond
>except to say
>that when Rothwell was given the papers in pdf form of images (so that he could
>not misedit them), he and Storms elected (to this day) to censor them.
In that case, Mitch, why don'
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 02:26 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote:
Swartz I do not understand, except for his comments about flow
calorimetry, which are wrong.
Continuum electromechanics and engineering may be foreign to Jed Rothwell,
but they are not wrong.
Our p
At 02:26 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote:
Swartz I do not understand, except for his comments about flow
calorimetry, which are wrong.
Continuum electromechanics and engineering may be foreign to Jed Rothwell,
but they are not wrong.
Our papers demonstrated that Rothwell
f the resulting
searchable image pdfs to be excellent.
(*)this would save Jed a lot of time so he could upload many more papers, for
the benefit of all.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:26 PM
Subj
lity of the
resulting searchable image pdfs to be excellent.
(*)this would save Jed a lot of time so he could upload many more papers, for
the benefit of all.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:26
A better worded response follows.
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Steven Krivit wrote:
Someone (who wishes to be anon) wrote the following to me recently.
I'm interested in the thoughts and comments in response to it from
Vortexians:
-Steve
The ERAB council "proved" that cold fusion isn't
On Jul 20, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Steven Krivit wrote:
Thank you Horace
s
You are very welcome.
There is no such proof in the paper. There is no understanding to be
gained of the branching ratios shown by Figure 3.1 in the report Jed
provided:
I just realized the above sounds like a cr
Jones Beene wrote:
Here are the facts: I speculated that first-off the reprocessing was
"highly unlikely", and second gave no estimate of what it costs
them; but in point of fact, it would be closer to $50 than to one
million per kg . . .
Not according to the people at Ontario Hydro.
I do
Thank you Horace
s
There is no such proof in the paper. There is no understanding to be
gained of the branching ratios shown by Figure 3.1 in the report Jed
provided:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
I can say this with absolute conviction:
This appears to be the same absolute conviction you feel with regard to
the notion that Chinese people will spend a million dollars cleaning up
a kilogram of used moderator heavy water instead of spending $300
Jones Beene wrote:
I can say this with absolute conviction:
This appears to be the same absolute conviction you feel with regard
to the notion that Chinese people will spend a million dollars
cleaning up a kilogram of used moderator heavy water instead of
spending $300 to refine a new kilo
I can say this with absolute conviction:
There is NO single mechanism for CF, or any other form of LENR !!
Ockham be damned!
There are various known reactions, and possibly a few unknown, which
could be going on, depending on very small and seemingly insignificant
details, and depending on
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Steven Krivit wrote:
Someone (who wishes to be anon) wrote the following to me recently.
I'm interested in the thoughts and comments in response to it from
Vortexians:
-Steve
The ERAB council "proved" that cold fusion isn't DD fusion.
[snip]
There is no su
An old wired article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html
has some interesting comments with regard to Claytor's work, which
apparently also included ordinary electrolysis.
"I had a number of theorists backing me, because they were familiar
with the limitations of ho
Steven Krivit quoted an anonymous source:
The ERAB council "proved" that cold fusion isn't DD fusion.
I should know better than to comment on theory, but as far as I know,
cold fusion is DD fusion. It produces helium at the ratio to heat as
plasma DD fusion does, so what else could it be?
Someone (who wishes to be anon) wrote the following to me recently. I'm
interested in the thoughts and comments in response to it from Vortexians:
-Steve
The ERAB council "proved" that cold fusion isn't DD fusion. The point is,
"So what?", there are a zillion nuclear reaction paths that are
22 matches
Mail list logo
