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 Wed, May 08, 2013 at 03:16:39AM -0400, Axil Axil wrote:
A picture of the Hot Cat being tested to destruction was shown below. The
body of the reactor glowed bright red. The glow looked uniform to me except
for a hot spot near the front of the reactor. The picture is shown here
Nassim Nicholas taleb in antifragile says that current occidental
organisation try to control risk, so that when it happens it does huge
damage.
He take the debt as one example of increasing sensibility to risk.
optimism is often antifragility, like in emerging countries... there people
may say :
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
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
Mizuno observed several days of heat after death at about 100 W.
Presumably
the reaction was that big because he used a 100 g cathode. That is about
100 to 1000 times bigger than most cathodes today.
What I meant by a giant effect is melting down of
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
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:40:45AM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
What I meant by a giant effect is melting down of experimental setups,
as purportedly happened several times.
As far as I know, only one cathode melted, or vaporized. That was reported
by Fleischmann and Pons. Several other
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
Hi all,
Finally my first post after few years of tracking this list.
Canada’s Dr. Stoyan Sarg has published new book ‘Structural Physics of Nuclear
Fusion’ which is continuation of his ‘Basic Structures of Matter -
Supergravitation Unified Theory (BSM-SG)’.
The Cold Fusion (LENR) is widely
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 difficult to over look the huge burst of technological advancements made
as a result of WW2. Someone once noted that war can have the effect of
removing old entrenched leadership and ideas thru necessity - or just because
they got killed off!
I am also interested in the 'Breakaway
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
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
http://lenr-canr.org/?page_id=187#PhotosAccidents
If you're making knallgas with platinum group metals,
then this is how it would look like, yes.
The cells shown in these photos were open. There was no concentrated gas in
them. No gaseous fuel at 1 atm
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
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The reaction cannot be scaled up safely because it is not well understood
yet and it cannot be controlled, as Ed says.
Rationalization. Everyone wants to see a bigger effect, whether it takes
more material or not.
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive
result to be 1 in 4. You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy
afterwards. That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results,
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Of course, that is why science demands replication. No two scientists will
likely make the same mistake.
I submit all the scientists claiming dowsing, homeopathy, magnet motors,
are making the same mistakes. For a
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
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
dozens of events. Fleischmann and Pons had the best success rate, running
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Null results in some fields far exceed positive results. Beaudette pointed
to the early experiments cloning mammals. He said it took about 1000
attempts for one success. I have pointed to the number of collisions
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I regard tritium as proof that a nuclear reaction occurred. It is as
convincing as excess heat far beyond the limits of chemistry. It is easy
for experts to confirm that tritium is real. This is another type of
evidence
PF claimed about 10 W in 1989, and in 1993 they claimed 140W excess (with
40 W input), and they published in refereed journals. Hagelstein is
claiming an unverified 100 mW, and they have not published the results. 100
mW is 1400 times smaller than 140 W.
***As I stated, Hagelstein's experiment was
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. I had no idea. Now, why didn't they just do this bit of math for the
DOE panel instead of trying to convince them with boring old scientific
evidence.
***AFAIK, it was published after the (incredibly biased) DOE Panel.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
***As I stated, Hagelstein's experiment was over 6 MONTHS. Rossi claims
he ran an industrial hot water heater for 2 YEARS. The time factor is the
one which has grown.
Unpublished and unverified claims that mean
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. I had no idea. Now, why didn't they just do this bit of math for the
DOE panel instead of trying to convince them with boring old scientific
This paper was just published. I found it while doing a google search for
time-dependent strong force. This search was motivated by my model of the
nucleus as a non-Newtonian fluid. The properties of such fluid vary
with the rate of change of an applied force. The paper doesn't use the
term
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I have long felt that we are living in an age of pessimism. Also,
people have the notion that we are living through rapid technological
progress, but I disagree. Progress was much faster from 1890 to 1950.
I
But statistical analysis depends on the assumptions.
***Then plug in your assumptions back into the equation. If you think 5/6
researchers will generate false positive errors, then 1/6 will have
generated genuine positive results. If even 1/100 of them have generated
positive results then this
Really revolutionary ideas- even beyond cold fusion. I wish open minded
theoretical physicists should study the book with great care, without
prejudices. Nature is more subtle than we are educated to think.
Peter
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rafal K reptil...@o2.pl wrote:
Hi all,
Finally
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And while you incorrectly deny the claimed replications of polywater, it is
quite similar.There were 450 peer-reviewed publications on polywater. Most
of those professional scientists turned out to be wrong. There were 200
A good example of the validity of Planck's observation to fit reality is
to look at how plate tectonics were initially rejected, then embraced a
generation later.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Either that, or they knew, as any intelligent person would, that no one not
already a true believer, would take such an analysis seriously.
***Oh, so the folks at National Instruments aren't intelligent? Their JOB
is to
Unpublished and unverified claims that mean nothing.
***Sure they do, but they aren't worth as much as published and
'verified'. But does that mean your 450 published peer reviewed papers
on Polywater are worth more than a visit to a sitting professor at MIT with
a 6 month ongoing experiment?
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Tritium is detected at levels far below what is necessary to explain the
claims of excess heat, and the levels vary by about 10 orders of magnitude.
***Then you acknowledge that Tritium has been detected.
This is a
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wright brothers had to publish their results in a beekeepers journal.
No. They published in the J. Western Society of Engineers, which was a
top-notch journal. They published two papers:
Wilbur Wright, Some Aeronautical Experiments, Sept. 18, 1901
That's a 1901 article. They couldn't get published after 1903.
Wilbur Wright, Recent Experiments in Gliding Flight, November 1903
***I can't find this article. There is one with the exact same title from
1897 by Octave Chanute.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jed Rothwell
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And while you incorrectly deny the claimed replications of polywater, it
is quite similar.There were 450 peer-reviewed publications on polywater.
Most of those professional scientists turned out to be wrong.
Most of them were right. Most of the
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a 1901 article. They couldn't get published after 1903.
Wilbur Wright, Recent Experiments in Gliding Flight, November 1903
***I can't find this article.
See:
http://www.loc.gov/item/wright002973
They did not want to publish after 1903 for
I cannot vouch for the tally of positive replications counted by the people
at the Chinese Institute of High Energy Physics. It may be that there are
fewer than 14,720 positive runs reported in the literature. But here is the
salient point about all those replications. This simple fact is
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
As I recall, somewhere in his book, Polywater Felix Franks said that in
the end only one other lab claimed to replicate. Some others claimed
preliminary results that seemed interesting but they never claimed a
positive
Kevin, You just drove a stake through the heart of one of the silliest
arguments on record.
Tritium is detected at levels below what is necessary to explain excess
heat
Who cares? TRITIUM IS DETECTED ! Get it? This essentially proves the LENR
phenomenon is real.
Tritium is
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
As a practical matter the experimental method works. There is no
possibility that every single researcher has made a mistake in every single
high signal-to-noise ratio result. That would not happen in the life of the
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Kevin, You just drove a stake through the heart of one of the silliest
arguments on record.
** **
“Tritium is detected at levels below what is necessary to explain excess
heat”
** **
Who cares? TRITIUM IS
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
You're just repeating yourself, so I will too. Cold fusion is a theory to
explain erratic calorimetry results.
The results are not erratic. As shown by McKubre they are clearly governed
by control parameters such as loading and current density. When
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I cited 5 papers in Science, Nature, and JPC, all from different groups,
and I excerpted the parts where they make explicit claims to have produced
polywater. Whatever you recall is wrong.
Yes, there were reports of replications, according to Franks.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
You're just repeating yourself, so I will too. Cold fusion is a theory
to explain erratic calorimetry results.
The results are not erratic. As shown by McKubre they are
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
When the necessary conditions are met the effect ALWAYS occurs. Granted,
it is difficult to meet them.
Four years after McKubre said he had all the parameters defined, he said
he spoke to soon: With hindsight, we may now conclude that the
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I cited 5 papers in Science, Nature, and JPC, all from different groups,
and I excerpted the parts where they make explicit claims to have produced
polywater. Whatever you
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
When the necessary conditions are met the effect ALWAYS occurs.
Granted, it is difficult to meet them.
Four years after McKubre said he had all the parameters defined, he
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The results are not erratic.
Storms called cold fusion his reluctant mistress, and in an interview with
ruby carat (I think) he says the effect depends on mother natures mood (I'm
paraphrasing). Sounds erratic to me.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
If Polywater is an example of pathological science, then how many of
those peer reviewed papers were published AFTER the main realization that
chemicals in the cleaning process had affected the glassware used in the
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 not created except by guided luck. So what? This
problem is typical of
Plate tectonics were accepted when the evidence became overwhelming,
particularly the fossil and seismologic evidence. Yes, it took a a long
time, because geology yields its secrets greedily, but it had nothing to do
with attrition.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Kevin O'Malley
Of all of the logical fallacies to watch out for in detecting when someone
is being intentionally intellectually dishonest in attacking a proposition
there are two that stand out:
1) Of the various disjunctive supporting arguments available, the attacker
will avoid the strongest.
2) When
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. They recently
concluded that with so much evidence of anomalous heat generation...
Cluster formation among many elements and chemical compounds play a
critical role in LENR.
One particular and potent form was discovered by Mark LeClair of NanoSpire.
Polywater looks like a clustered formation of water that a LeClair has
discovered.
This cluster is comprised of a long chin of
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
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
know that's not the case from the events of 1989.
***because intelligent
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 02:07:27PM -0700, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
***because intelligent people don't like having their careers dragged
through the mud.
Established researchers with plenty to lose but little to gain,
almost certainly.
Any PhD or postdoc would latch upon most desperate case if
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
Established researchers with plenty to lose but little to gain,
almost certainly.
Any PhD or postdoc would latch upon most desperate case if
she sensed a chance to make her bones on it.
That is not true in the real world. I know many professors and grad
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.
I trust physicists who are skeptical. I don't trust physicists who are
pathologically skeptical, who refuse to look at the data in the same way
that
We've been infiltrated by a pre-programmed not-bot with volatile RAM
memory...
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude
joshua.c...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'joshua.c...@gmail.com');
wrote:
If this is such indisputable
Like Ed says,
What is the usefulness of all this discussion. Cude will not accept the
most obvious and well supported arguments and he will not
accept what I just said here. He makes no effort to find common ground or
to add any insight to the discussion. In his mind, the CF claims are only
Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now.
***I see you're changing your stance. Earlier you said it had stopped.
What's left now are only the mentally feeble and the scammers.
***Dr. Arrata is a mental giant compared to you.
The rest of your argument is a classic fallacy,
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
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
dozens of events. Fleischmann and Pons had the best success rate, running
plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were accepted.
there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before.
all what happens is well described by thomas kuhn and nassim nicholas taleb.
about unreliability if you were not illiterate you will know the result of
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
I may give it better than a passing chance, even if it is only 51%. That
could change quickly if there were more dots to connect. Here is one more
dot - at the 10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded
On another heretical subject, I know a scientist that clearly state at the
end of a conference that he refused to ask his students to help him,
because it could ruin their career...
and the job was only statistical.
any real-life scientist claiming that you can work on cold fusion without
ruining
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
time, because geology yields its secrets greedily, but it had nothing to do
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
about unreliability if you were not illiterate you will know the result of
ENEA published at ICCF15 that link reliability to crystallography, and make
a strong correlation.
you can forget errors. errors dont correlate with crystallography, like
Scientists must Study the Nuclear Weak Force to Better Understand LENR
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Scientists-must-Study-the-Nuclear-Weak-Force-to-Better-Understand-LENR.html
By Daily Energy Report | Tue, 07 May 2013 21:33 |
In the early part of the 20th Century
The Air Force stripped an unprecedented 17 officers of their authority to
control -- and, if necessary, launch -- nuclear missiles after a string of
unpublicized failings, including a remarkably dim review of their unit's
launch skills. The group's deputy commander said it is suffering rot
within
Why does this post disturb you?
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 03:16:39AM -0400, Axil Axil wrote:
A picture of the Hot Cat being tested to destruction was shown below.
The
body of the reactor glowed bright red. The glow looked
. have you ever been to Minot?
It's not high on anyone's list of favorite destinations most of the year.
And then there are the unexplained deaths of young airmen in the area still
not investigated . not to mention the missing item and the Major in a
Landfill . is this a comedy or a tragedy,
I tried all kinds of gasses on all sorts of filaments Got nothing then
something happened with ammonia on tungsten filaments.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1980/F1/f19807600280
I will get to the bottom of what ever melted my wire.
Frank Znidarsic
Hi,
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
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 thread, Joshua. Here you assert that
positive, credible evidence has not
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/may/08/nuclear-physics-goes-pear-shaped
Nuclear physics goes pear shaped
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Really revolutionary ideas- even beyond cold fusion. I wish open minded
theoretical physicists
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
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 fusion, but it hasn't happened yet.
***Then by your own reasoning, LENR is
Polywater may come back to embarrass the so called 'competent' scientific
community...
As was originally brought up by Bill Beatty (this list's founder) in 2008,
unbeknownst to me, and later that year by me in this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg27994.html
is the
82 matches
Mail list logo
