From Mike Carrell:
Valuable comments regarding the work of Jed, Ed, and Steve Krivit deleted here.
...
... There should be a 60 Minutes story from ICCF-14; a TV crew was
there covering the first day. There has been goverment support from
the Navy and DARPA.
Is that true? I would love to see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We have wasted 20 years. We have made essentially no progress
trying to convince the establishment.
You people are going to have to find out the hard way -- more than you
already have, I mean -- that it is the capitalist establishment which is
in
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:00:02 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
A problem exists with respect to Type A Pd, which is claimed to be
used for gas purification. However, only the Pd075Ag25 alloy is used
for this purpose because this alloy, unlike pure Pd, does not crack
My belief is that the Pd-Ag works because it is able to support a high
D/Pd at the surface because the diffusion rate is lower than pure Pd.
Also, it does not crack. I have tried pure silver, but it does not
absorb D.
Ed
On Mar 14, 2009, at 8:12 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:01:03 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
My belief is that the Pd-Ag works because it is able to support a high
D/Pd at the surface because the diffusion rate is lower than pure Pd.
Also, it does not crack. I have tried pure silver, but it does not
Edmund Storms wrote:
I'm frustrated with this exchange as well. You seem to be unwilling to
acknowledge that any of my comments have any merit at all.
Oh come now. Of course I realize what you are saying! I know what the
standards of science are supposed to be, and what has happened in the
Jed,
If you understand what I'm saying, then make this clear and stop
arguing every point. In any case. I don't have time to get into a
nitpicking discussion. I asked a simple question. Exactly how would
you promote the field? I'm not interested in general ideas such as do
what Obama
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
You think you have all the information you need to make the effort.
No, I do not. I require complete descriptions of experiments,
I believe Ed Storms published a complete description of his recent
experiments with gas phase LENR and radiation
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
No, I do not. I require complete descriptions of experiments,
I believe Ed Storms published a complete description of his recent
experiments with gas phase LENR and radiation generation, didn't he?
I think we need an even more comprehensive description of some
I think an estimate of the cost of doing an experiment like Oriani's
would be persuasive too. ;-)
Harry
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Jed,
If you understand what I'm saying
Edmund Storms wrote:
I asked a simple question. Exactly how would you promote the field?
I do not have a simple answer. I have a whole series of ideas that I
have proposed at various times to different researchers. They include
things such as enhanced Internet presentations, outreach
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Everything I do is rational and well focused. I am a
programmer.
Bzzzt!
So am I. And so are lots of folks I know.
Believe me, one does *not* follow from the other!
Rational and well focused ... well, I've known one or two programmers
like that, I guess... a couple of
On Mar 13, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Does Johnson-Matthey Type A palladium still work?
Fleischmann and I do not know. The manufacturing method was changed
sometime after 1989 to reduce toxicity during manufacturing. The
newer formulation
Gentlemen, I have no solution to offer. I cannot fault Jed, who has invested
a couple decades of his time and treasure in promoting CF with every means
at his disposal, including constructively nagging every investigator in the
field. Nor can I fault Ed for his open-minded scholarship an
Jed,
On several occasions you have opined that people in the CF field have
done a poor job of PR. Please explain how this can be done better.
Remember, this is science, not selling soap. Only certain methods are
acceptable without making the claims look like a scam, which other
Edmund Storms wrote:
On several occasions you have opined that people in the CF field have
done a poor job of PR. Please explain how this can be done better.
Remember, this is science, not selling soap.
THAT is your first mistake! This is not science. It is selling soap,
and more to the
On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
On several occasions you have opined that people in the CF field have
done a poor job of PR. Please explain how this can be done better.
Remember, this is science, not selling soap.
THAT is your first mistake! This is
Edmund Storms wrote:
The people who try to sell science like soap always fail.
On the contrary, they are doing quite well. They
have sold opposition to cold fusion with no more
credence than the 1950s soap advertisement --
without a shred of actual scientific content --
and they have
Snip
Frankly, I am somewhat fed up from hearing from you -- and much more
often from cold fusion researchers -- that nothing can be done and
that we should not even try, and that I do not understand scientists
or how science is done. Scientists are people, and I know a thing or
two
Jed Rothwell wrote:
...
If I am wrong and the time cannot be shortened, then I expect there is
no hope of success. In that case I have wasted most of my adult life. I
refuse to believe that, and I /absolutely/ refuse to give up. Churchill
has nothing on me; see:
20 matches
Mail list logo
