Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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,

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 stud

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 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 positive

RE: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:56 AM To: vortex-l@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

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > 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 counter-examples. > > If those h

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-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 01:30 AM 2/24/2011, you wrote: >> Not being able to concede a

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 S

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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. >

RE: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 Wikip

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > 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 it. That's som

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 D

RE: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

imo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [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.

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 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 amazed at your patien

Re: [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.

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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. Plant

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 u

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

- Original Message > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > 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

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

> 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 wo

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 s

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 ou

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell 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 into his own mind

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 04:22 PM 2/22/2011, Charles HOPE wrote: On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: [...] I'm designing and constructing a single, very specific experiment, that anyone could replicate with about $100 and a power supply. Bu

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 03:05 AM 2/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: Pons and Fleischmann made no such promise. They noted the potential, *if* this could be developed. First of all, "has promise" normal

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 fro

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > 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 in the last 20 y

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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

RE: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 ex

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 05:46 AM 2/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: Excess heat is an experimental result. Excess heat is an interpretation of experimental results. Sure. So are all experimental results

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > 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 labor for > replic

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 04:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@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, r

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 o

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 conserv

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 rea

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:18 AM, 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 simp

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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, inclu

RE: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

>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

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > >> 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 and effort. Ti

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > 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 intervi

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 03:01 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@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 <a...@lomaxd

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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,

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

Joshua Cude 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 bias, it would be ESP.

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 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, reports of > phenomena that imply reality, discussion of possible explanations that > assume C

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 i

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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: fine

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 12:47 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell <> jedrothw...@gmail.com>jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Cude has added that he is not "convinced that nuclear reactions in cold >> fusi

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 tra

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <> a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: >> > > So I'm going to ask, as to cold fusion in general, "what has been >>> pr

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > 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 joined because my c

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 wi

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 12:47 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: 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 vie

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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/

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 i

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 the single consistent outcome in the huge variety of cold fusion exper

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 10:52 AM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: 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

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 banne

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 numbe

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell 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 > evidence that

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 wrote: > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > >> This discussion has been about

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

At 10:33 AM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@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 so

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 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 is so good. It was

Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > 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 Rothwell), and

[Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?

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 Rothwell), and if cold fusion could deliver a tiny fraction of what has been promised