I've been looking through my personal archives.
I declared on Wed Apr 22, 2009 02:07pm
I'm changing my position from 'maybe' to 'yes'.
and came across a Jed quote :
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Chemists taken in by Cold Fusion . . . AGAIN!
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
The NRL recently repeated the Arata experiment several hundred times in a
row with automated equipment, completely degassing the samples between
runs. It worked every time. So I do not see why you say that nothing has
changed.
(Got a quick link to the
I found Miles at the 2010 ACS reporting 6/6 (Though for my purposes
his $50 calorimeter got the press's attention).
At 01:02 PM 9/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
They described a lot more about it at ICCF17. Kidwell finally agrees
it is anomalous.
Does Kidwell say so in a paper?
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
They described a lot more about it at ICCF17. Kidwell finally agrees it is
anomalous.
Does Kidwell say so in a paper?
As of a few weeks ago he had not yet turned in a paper for ICCF17. But that
is what he and Dawn Dominguez said in their presentations.
At 03:02 PM 9/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Alan J Fletcher mailto:a...@well.coma...@well.com wrote:
The NRL recently repeated the Arata experiment several hundred times
in a row with automated equipment, completely degassing the samples
between runs. It worked every time. So I do not see why
At 03:43 PM 9/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Having David Kidwell to say anything unequivocally positive about
cold fusion is the fourth miracle of cold fusion. The three previous
miracles, brought to you by Huizenga, pale in comparison. The
Coulomb barrier is nothing compared to the Kidwell
Regarding the Dardik/Ultrasonic paper, I wonder if anyone has tried vapor
deposition of palladium (or nickel, titanium, lithium???) directly onto a
material with piezoelectric properties? Or for that matter, deposition on
to a SAW device, over a very thin passivation layer that in turn lies over
Alain,
this order is bad in real lifen and the rejection of LENR is caused by that
pseudo-rational pathology...
I appreciate Your fight against pathoskepticism and partly agree.
To converge on the issue, let me comment:
in real life the inventors discover a phenomenon, try to make it
Well,
Let me tell You:
As an 'inventor' myself, not of the trivial Apple sort, the non-obviousness is
in the eye of competent.
My 'invention' was about an interferometer which is insensitive to five of six
degrees of freedom.
Not an easy task.
BUT: it was completely within existing physical
@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 2:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Godes probably wouldn't agree. Fwiw, he seems to be an advocate of an electron
capture kind of hypothesis as opposed to a fusion kind of hypothesis.
Electron capture hypotheses roughly
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
my five cents:
a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level.
b) produce a working hypothesis
c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc.
d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com
mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote:
And when SRI does this, it puts itself outside the scientific method
of rigorous interpersonal replication.
SRI and Godes are presently engaged in commercial RD, not rigorous
fundamental scientific research.
On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
[...]
This has nothing to do with me. I am not in charge of policy at the
U.S. Patent Office. They are the source of the problem. The purpose of
a patent is to promote progress in technology by sharing information
while protecting intellectual
No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The
utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.comwrote:
I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The
criteria
pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in
multiple tests (over 150)?
Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before.
There may have been
Craig,
I noticed several times in the cat patent, they mention invisible
light. That's interesting, possibly an invalid patent, or possibly,
one could patent one, using visible light.
Bob
On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
[...]
This has nothing to do with me. I am not in
On 09/19/2012 11:44 AM, Robert Dorr wrote:
Craig,
I noticed several times in the cat patent, they mention invisible
light. That's interesting, possibly an invalid patent, or possibly,
one could patent one, using visible light.
Bob
I'm sure you've seen this. You take a laser pointer and
this principle specifically to scientists ...
Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Gesendet: 17:25 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious
.
Guenter
---
*Von:* Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com
*An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Gesendet:* 2:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012
*Betreff:* Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Godes probably wouldn't agree. Fwiw, he seems to be an advocate
James Bowery wrote:
No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The
utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work.
Correct. I think useful means usable. That is, the invention does
something, however trivial. It works. The purpose it is applied to may
In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:13:21 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual
property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied.
..now you understand the true purpose of the patent office! ;)
Regards,
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in
multiple tests (over 150)?
Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before.
There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I
suspected
If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the
poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community
exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would
show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read
about
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the
poster child for CF/LENR?!
Because it just happened. They only began this work 6 months or a year ago
as I recall, and this is the first paper. The official collaboration with
SRI just
By the way, those 150 tests were not conducted at SRI. SRI cannot yet
officially put their seal of approval on them, although they do say they
have confidence in the work. That's what McKubre told me.
Tests of this system will soon begin at SRI.
It is not shocking to me that something like this
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success inmultiple
tests (over 150)?
Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before.
There may have been a few
]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success inmultiple
tests (over 150)?
Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before.
There may have been a few poorly documented
will go a long way to
achieving what you ask.
-Mark Iverson
From: mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Gibbs
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
If the Godes/McKubre system has
Iverson
** **
*From:* mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark
Gibbs
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:20 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
** **
If the Godes/McKubre system has 100
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
How disappointing. Once again, it looks like yet more jam tomorrow.
It takes a long time to do research. Months and months to set up an
experiment. You have to live with that. It is like building a house with 2
or 3 people, or writing a million-line computer
In order to be commercially viable, the Godes reactor must move to a high
temperature hydrogen gas phase reactor. If enough RD funding is available
to do this, why go public.
A few months ago, Godes went public when he needed more RD funds. This
strategy worked and he got the additional funding
.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't
I wrote:
If you had any idea how difficult it is, you would be amazed at how
quickly they do it, and how much progress they have made. . . .
Setting up and running an experiment is painstaking, time consuming work.
You can see what I mean in these photos of Celani's demonstration
Mark, I did this QA with Robert Godes July a year ago.
I had already spoke with him one-on-one in an interview I could not
publish about early January 2011 (before the Rossi demo).
Though the electrolytic cell generated a small COP, he had 100%
reproducibility then, turning on and off
Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:
*One possible private donor seeking a technical evaluation was informed
by a **National Science Foundation** member (whose review entailed “a
quick scan” of the Brillouin Energy website) that it was “quite possible
they had created the ‘instant death’ version of
I read Mr. Godes paper the day it appeared on the New Energy Times site (I
think that was back in July?). I immediately had the feeling it was
important. At the same time, the word proprietary appears six times. It
seems clear that Mr. Godes believes the road to progress is a working
device, not
Thanks, Ruby ... Jed just asked the same question I was going to ask ...
[mg]
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:
*One possible private donor seeking a technical evaluation was informed
by a **National Science Foundation**
Yes, that's what they meant; the idea being, if it was really fusion,
there would be deadly radiation that would have killed everyone around.
In addition, if it /were/ to be true, in the hands of the wrong people
could be dangerous for our planet.
My next paragraph in the article was:
Godes probably wouldn't agree. Fwiw, he seems to be an advocate of an
electron capture kind of hypothesis as opposed to a fusion kind of
hypothesis.
Electron capture hypotheses roughly substitute the miracle of coming up
with a missing ~0.8MeV (along with some quantum mumbo jumbo) for the
miracle
40 matches
Mail list logo
