On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 04:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
You are arguing with a straw man, Joshua.
You're call yourself a straw man?
It's obvious that many scientists do not accept cold fusion. So people
write to explain
At 01:30 AM 2/24/2011, you wrote:
Not being able to concede a point is a clear sign of someone
with an ulterior motive, or a pathological skeptic who simply can't
accept things which challenge
their understanding of things. Not surprising... He reminds me of
some of the worst editors on
It seems like the field needs a new improved experiment showing helium/heat.
Joshua, can you specify some parameters that would convince you?
Sent from my iPhone.
At 02:05 AM 2/24/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
Abd,
Thanks for your generous, civil response to Terry's idiot -- uh,
naturally, it increases my confidence in you when you show up as the
only one to fully understand and support my simple The Emperor has no
clothes... critique about the error by
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
The key that something was really off was, though, that he'd make sweeping
statements that were clearly false, such as no peer-reviewed confirmation of
heat/helium after Miles in 1993. I cited the
@eskimo.com
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
Isn't it more likely that the skeptics simply think the field is a joke, rather
than that they're
intimidated by the weight of the positive evidence?
Sent from my iPhone.
On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:52, Abd ul
I just had to chime in here, after reading this entire thread. I am amazed
at how many of you have been so patient. Then again, I had a few cough
that were that patient with me when I first paid attention to weird
science too. My experience with septicism goes back a few years.
I am not
At 11:44 AM 2/24/2011, Charles Hope wrote:
It seems like the field needs a new improved experiment showing
helium/heat. Joshua, can you specify some parameters that would convince you?
I'm not sure that the field needs this, not as a priority. Improved
heat/helium would make a nice grad
At 11:56 AM 2/24/2011, Charles Hope wrote:
Isn't it more likely that the skeptics simply think the field is a
joke, rather than that they're intimidated by the weight of the
positive evidence?
I don't think anyone is intimidated by the weight of the evidence.
Most skeptics simply don't know,
At 04:22 PM 2/22/2011, Charles HOPE wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
[...] I'm designing and constructing a single, very specific
experiment, that anyone could replicate with about $100 and a power
supply. But
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
To summarize Cude's position:
He does not believe in the scientific method, replication, high signal to
noise ratios, peer review, calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. To be
exact, he believe that whatever pops
This becomes an examination of the tendentious pseudo-skepticism of
Joshua Cude, who, I have concluded, is so careless with the evidence
he presents, distorting it in his summarization of it, enough that I
consider it the equivalent of lying. People lie. It is sometimes
necessary to point it
At 01:03 AM 2/23/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
Neither Joshua nor I are implacable doctrinaire skeptics.
Again, I am very impressed by the clarity and scope of Joshua Cude's
assessments. Now, it is clear that he has been monitoring cold fusion
adequately for many years.
You are not a doctrinaire
If a device can produce 10 kernels of wheat from one kernel, you only need
one kernel to feed the world. Once it gets going, there is no input
required.
Sure. Let's look at the analogy. You can produce 10 kernels of wheat from
one kernel. Easy. Plant it. Does that mean that the world is
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, February 23, 2011 12:16:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At this point, since I have not run this experiment, I'm not selling kits,
but
all
At 05:25 PM 2/23/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
Well done...but your local nuclear regulatory agency might shutdown
your business until the kit is thorougly screened for all manner of
emissions. Or have you already got that covered?
Well, you should understand the expected neutron level. From my
At 04:48 PM 2/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
If a device can produce 10 kernels of wheat from one kernel, you
only need one kernel to feed the world. Once it gets going, there
is no input required.
Sure. Let's look at the analogy. You can produce 10 kernels of
wheat from one kernel. Easy.
By the way, my responses to Cude will be drastically shortened, I
suspect. If Cude raises some issue that anyone think is crying out
for an answer, second the motion, so to speak. Ask for response.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
I'm no longer writing for you, Cude. Ignore my posts if you like.
Let us know if you have something substantive to say, beyond repeating your
canned bluster.
May whatever Deity is yours bless you Abd. I am
: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
By the way, my responses to Cude will be drastically shortened, I suspect. If
Cude raises some issue
that anyone think is crying out for an answer, second the motion, so to
speak. Ask for response.
Abd,
Thanks for your generous, civil response to Terry's idiot -- uh,
naturally, it increases my confidence in you when you show up as the
only one to fully understand and support my simple The Emperor has no
clothes... critique about the error by SPAWAR of thinking an
external high voltage DC
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 03:01 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
By whom?
Maybe you're new to the field.
Well, not exactly.
It was a joke.
Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just watch
their
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Excess heat is an experimental result.
Excess heat is an interpretation of experimental results.
If it is the result of an artifact, it should be possible to identify the
artifact.
Maybe, but it takes time
From: Joshua Cude
From Lomax:
This is the point, Joshua: There are hundreds of researchers
who have reported significant anomalous heat from palladium
deuteride.
The large number is actually disturbing. So many experiments,
and they never get better. They can't come up with one that
On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just
watch their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the ideal
energy source: clean and unlimited and simple) and then by just about
every cold fusion advocate since, including
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just watch
their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the ideal energy source:
clean and unlimited
At 03:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
I've seen what they write. Practically every review is preoccupied
with defending the reality of the field. I know you've read Storms'
abstract to his latest review, because you are acknowledged in the
paper. It's 2010, and most of it reiterates the
At 02:51 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
Yes, I am aware that I do not belong here. I joined because my
critique of Levi's interpretation in the Yahoo group was
cross-posted here, and was being (ineptly) challenged. I felt I had
a good reason to come and defend it. I have joined only
To summarize Cude's position:
He does not believe in the scientific method, replication, high signal
to noise ratios, peer review, calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics.
To be exact, he believe that whatever pops into his own mind, or what he
says I believe, automatically overrules all of
At 04:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
If you examine what's being published, you don't find an attempt to
prove it's real, not lately, anyway. You find, in primary research,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
The massive rejection of cold fusion, which extended to rejection of a
graduate student thesis solely because it involved cold fusion research, and
once the news of that got around, cut off the normal supply of
At 05:46 AM 2/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Excess heat is an experimental result.
Excess heat is an interpretation of experimental results.
Sure. So are all experimental results
At 08:54 AM 2/22/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
From: Joshua Cude
From Lomax:
This is the point, Joshua: There are hundreds of researchers
who have reported significant anomalous heat from palladium
deuteride.
The large number is actually disturbing. So many
At 10:18 AM 2/22/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just
watch their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the
ideal energy source: clean and unlimited and simple) and then by
just
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Any review of an effect that is not trivial to observe will reiterate the
evidence for the effect.
I checked the abstract for a review of high temp superconductivity (which
incidentally has 100,000 publications
Neither Joshua nor I are implacable doctrinaire skeptics.
Again, I am very impressed by the clarity and scope of Joshua Cude's
assessments. Now, it is clear that he has been monitoring cold fusion
adequately for many years.
Cold fusion has always been a moribund field, as I observed carefully
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Subject was Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from
Rossi device
At 04:12 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
Not true. I have described what it would take to convince me (and so has
Jed
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
This discussion has been about the Rossi work, which is based on a secret
process, and which is inadequately confirmed . . .
I think the confirmation is better than most claims, simply because the
power is so high, and the input to output ratio
At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
So I'm going to ask, as to cold fusion in general, what has been
promised and what do promises have to do with science?
A new energy source
In any case, a test as today's unofficial Bologna test (18 hours 15 KW)
will not convince him. Possibly the water was not heated- it was actually
cooled. See my posting
Peter
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude has added that he is not convinced that nuclear reactions in cold
fusion experiments have produced measurable heat. From my point of view
that puts him in the category of creationists who are not convinced of the
On 02/21/2011 12:39 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
In any case, a test as today's unofficial Bologna test (18 hours 15 KW)
Any documentation, or reports by witnesses? Any clear measurements
which give substance to the 15 kW number? Did anybody write it up?
I'm not sure what an official test would
On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
So, we have someone who is not a scientist, who doesn't know that
the temperature of steam can exceed 100C at atmospheric pressure,
saying that vast majority of people who do science are not
scientists. But let's look at scientific progress
On 02/21/2011 01:28 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/21/2011 12:39 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
In any case, a test as today's unofficial Bologna test (18 hours 15 KW)
Any documentation, or reports by witnesses? Any clear measurements
which give substance to the 15 kW number? Did
On 02/21/2011 01:33 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
[a bunch of sneering jeers directed at Jed]
Here specifically is rule 2:
2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
banned. Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the
At 10:52 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
This discussion has been about the Rossi work, which is based on a
secret process, and which is inadequately confirmed . . .
I think the confirmation is better than most
At 12:47 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude has added that he is not convinced that nuclear reactions in
cold fusion experiments have produced measurable heat. From my
point of view
Rich Murray wrote:
Since 1989...
No replication...
By independent groups...
By associated groups...
By the same group, on the scale of days, weeks, years...
By the same group with a single device, on the scale of days, weeks, years...
That's ridiculous. The bulk Pd-D experiment has been
On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Rich Murray wrote:
Rich, a floating shiny brown anomaly in the punch bowl
Agreement at last! 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
On Feb 21, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 02/21/2011 01:33 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
[a bunch of sneering jeers directed at Jed]
Here specifically is rule 2:
2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Your faith is irrelevant to the purpose, and as voiced above actually
contrary to the stated purpose, of this list.
Yes, I am aware that I do not belong here. I
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:
a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
So I'm going to ask, as to cold fusion in general, what
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But Rossi is not a clear confirmation of any prior work, since we
don't know what's inside.
Sure he is. This is a confirmation of Piantelli and Focardi, and Mills
for that matter. We know approximately what is inside: finely divided Ni
and two other elements in
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 12:47 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell mailto:
jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude has added that he is not convinced that nuclear reactions
At 03:28 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But Rossi is not a clear confirmation of any prior work, since we
don't know what's inside.
Sure he is. This is a confirmation of Piantelli and Focardi, and
Mills for that matter. We know approximately what is inside:
At 01:41 PM 2/21/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I don't know about Joshua, but a report of an experiment with no details
given sure doesn't convince *me*, but maybe that makes me a pathological
skeptic, too, eh?
Of course not. That was hyperbole on Jed's part. He might be right,
if Joshua
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
If you examine what's being published, you don't find an attempt to prove
it's real, not lately, anyway. You find, in primary research, reports of
phenomena that imply reality, discussion of possible explanations
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that the experiments are working close to detection limits for helium,
a little cognitive bias could explain the correlation.
1. They were not close to the detection limit.
2. As Abd noted, they were blind tests. So it would not be cognitive
On 02/21/2011 03:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This was a test without steam (with the Delta-T deliberately well
below those achieved last January 14).
That's what Celani was looking for. That's good.
Good? That's *great*! Is there a paper on it, either present or
forthcoming, I hope, I
At 03:01 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
60 matches
Mail list logo
