https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y3Bxr_aE2iosEKpGFUZiQgAcuT8AFN78RFCAlR-JqNw/edit
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Blaze Spinnaker<[email protected]> wrote: > Note by translator Stoyan Sarg: The initial heating power and temperature > before reaching 10000C is not shown in the plot of slide #16 (does he > mean 17?). Is it taken into account for the accumulated energy? If not a > much longer test is needed for estimation of the COP. > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > Jed -- I'm simply taking Stoyan's comment, verified it to make sure I > understood what he was saying, and repeated it. > > If you want to call Stoyan ignorant and arrogant, be my guest.. > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is >>> making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. >>> >> >> No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has >> often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as >> this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a >> problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates >> that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and >> I am assuming it is cold fusion.) >> >> YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a >> subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with >> assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You >> think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion >> exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything >> about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
