On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:57 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> There is direct evidence to support my side whereas there is nothing but
> speculation to support yours. Not one piece of evidence has been shown
> that Rossi or the scientists engaged in a scam.
>
There is also no direct evidence of tri
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Cude wrote:
>
>. . . some kind of deception is far more likely than a revolution in
> physics.
>
>
> This is the heart of Cude's arguments,
>
On the ecat, yes. The claims here are much larger than most of the cold
fusion claims, and the
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:51 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
> Skepticism is OK, but I suggest you plow through 24 years of research
> before you mock "true believers".
>
>
>
I've read a lot of the literature, and all the ones considered to be the
best, and true believers still deserve to be mocked.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Randy wuller wrote:
> **
> Joshua:
>
> Don't you find the following scenario just a little disconcerting.
>
> For 24 years the scientific community has been certain (to the point of
> claiming that "Cold Fusion" was pseudoscience" that the anomalous heat
> found b
line several times.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation
of radiated power
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You are letting your emo
Cude wrote:
. . . some kind of deception is far more likely than a revolution in
physics.
This is the heart of Cude's arguments, and also Park's. Deception is
more likely than revolution. If Rossi was the only person making these
claims that might be true, but it is a fact that hundreds of o
Actually I believe it refers to the Judgers of Truth and Knowledge like it
reads.
I have followed the Rossi saga for two years as well as DGT and many other
research articles and papers. I am convinced there is anomalous heat there
and possibly endothermic vacuum at times. Many of the Scientists
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported
underestimation of radiated power
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You are letting your emotions influence your thinking. Try to keep
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
> I think I posted this previously, but Joshua appears to be the chosen
> one...
>
> “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
> shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Albert Einstein
>
>
>
I believe that de
I think I posted this previously, but Joshua appears to be the chosen one...
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” Albert Einstein
Stewart
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> You are letting your emotions influence your thinking. Try to keep an
> open mind for a change
>
No, that's you. Cold fusion would benefit everyone, so emotionally I'd like
it to be true, but I'm rational.
You, on the other hand, are co
Message-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 1:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation
of radiated power
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
So, we are left with
a) Fraud by Rossi and/or those in cahoots
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
>
> So, we are left with
>
> a) Fraud by Rossi and/or those in cahoots with him
>
> b) DC
>
>
Those could be the same, but DC is too specific. The point is that the
input was inadequately measured, and given the very restricted frequency
res
With conspiracy theories* the plausibility goes down as the number of
participants goes up. Since Levi alone is responsible for the
instrumentation -- at least from my recollection of some of the statements
-- and Levi has long been associated with Rossi, a Levi-Rossi conspiracy is
where the skept
> From: "Joshua Cude"
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:47:48 AM
> I think Pekka is right. If the camera samples above the peak
> wavelength, and it is a grey body, then an emissivity of 1 seems to
> be always conservative.
...
> So, the only way the camera could give an overestimate of the power
I think Pekka is right. If the camera samples above the peak wavelength,
and it is a grey body, then an emissivity of 1 seems to be always
conservative.
I'm still not entirely sure how the effective exponent works in the
instrument software, but I did a calculation similar to Pekka's, if a
little
From a comment thread on e-catworld:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/
Pekka Janhunen on May 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Off-topic for the thread: the question whether assuming emissivity equal to
one indeed yields to underestimation of the radiated power. Now I
17 matches
Mail list logo
