On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> wrote:
> Most of those postings are providing some models, some calculations… > something of substance which, although however speculative, at least that > speculation is backed by some numbers. There's nothing magical about numbers. With data of unknown or bad quality as the input, calculations are not necessarily helpful. I can't follow the nuclear physics discussions and calculations but I am conversant enough with heat transfer and fluid flow to follow those. If I'd had something to add to them, I would have. > Now, just sorting by number of posts, Jed comes in way at the TOP!! (He > needs to get laid more often) J > > MaryYugo comes is second with 531. Your attention to my posting frequency is touching. Many if not most posts were in direct response to someone responding to me. Should I ignore responses to keep posting frequency lower? > There are VERY few of those, and if you are specifically referring to our > ‘poster from down under’, AussieGuy, with about half the posting rate as > you, HE IS THE ONLY ONE ON THE ENTIRE LIST THAT HAS ACTUALLY MADE > ARRANGEMENTS TO BUY ONE, AND HAS AGREED TO PROPERLY TEST AND REPORT HIS > FINDINGS! Even with all your redundant postings, I would not be singling > you out if you were putting together a group to buy and test an E-Cat; or > taking time and money to have traveled to Italy to see first-hand. I would > be applauding you…. > First of all, nobody has ever reported succeeding in buying an E-cat so I have reason to doubt that AussieGuy's arrangements are even worth the cost of the phone calls he's made. Everything he reports is unsubstantiated claims and projections Rossi provides. That's not much more of a contribution than one can get simply reading Rossi's bizarre blog. Second, how do you know what I did or didn't do? As it happens, I did discuss with several people the possibility of putting together an effort to visit Rossi and get a proper test. I also had what I hope were helpful private email discussions with Jed Rothwell regarding possible instrumentation and methods for such a test with respect to a group he was trying to form. That was before I joined the Vortex email list. Reading mainly what Jed had to say privately and in public, it became clear to me that Rossi had no intention of allowing a proper independent test of his device and the people I was talking to about a trip to Italy lost interest. There's little point in getting a repeat of Krivit's dismal experience with Rossi, or NASA or Quantum's. I believe the group Jed was assisting came to somewhat similar conclusions because they apparently declined to visit Rossi and/or Defkalion as well. > > My first response to this point was handled in a previous posting about an > hour ago, but let me summarize: > > 1) Vortex-l was founded TO DISCUSS UNCONVENTIONAL PHYSICS; LENR, and > more specifically the e-Cat, falls into that category. If you want to > discuss conventional physics, then what the hell are you doing here? > I think that "discuss" includes valid criticism and disapproval as well as adulation. > 3) Tell me Mary, what useful technical knowledge have we gained from > ANY of your 531 posts in the last month??? Nothing that comes to mind; > nothing I didn’t already know way back in January after the first Rossi > demo. > Perhaps you don't find my discussions relevant or helpful. You're free to ignore them. Others may find the parallel between Steorn and other scammers and their actions useful. Yet others may benefit from my past experience with calorimetry and my suggestions for doing it correctly, something which Rossi appears to avoid with studious precision. > “Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself > a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated > copper block on which to move his thermocouples around.” > At least he got off his ass and took time to learn something, and share that > knowledge… YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT BITCH, WHINE AND MOAN about the same > few things. That's your interpretation. Other may vary. A bad simulation is no more useful or interesting than no simulation. Inasmuch as it may mislead, it's worse.
