Peter, the response to Cude is for educational purposes, which you of
all people should understand and support. Many readers of Vortex share
Cude's views. We need to educate them. Cude is their spokesman. The
other people might learn by having some of the challenges answered.
Nevertheless, a debate with Cude is not useful because his response
will not be productive. Hopefully, other people will ask useful
questions that can be answered, as a few people have done.
As for concentrating on problems of reproducibility and upscalability,
I have tried to address these issues but with little support.
Ed Storms
On May 7, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
I sincerely do not understand this collective exercise in masochism
based on discussion with a bravo as Joshua Cude.
He simply makes intentionally the error that considers CF's temporary
problems as a sign that. CF does not exist
Let's better concentrate on the problems of reproducibility and
upscalability
and if these cannot be solved in the Pd-D system then we have to
solve them in other systems.With Joshua we can build only parallel
monologues not a dialogue
Peter
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>
wrote:
Edmund Storms [email protected] via eskimo.com
7:48 AM (2 hours ago)
to vortex-l
Joshua, ...You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of
many mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists.
***In order to avoid a straw argument, I ask Joshua if you do argue
this? If so, let's examine the mathematical possibility of so many
positive results arriving by virtue of mistakes.
I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to
positive result to be 1 in 4. You can use whatever estimate suits
your fancy afterwards. That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free
positive results, right? So let's be even more generous to the
argument and make it 1 in 3. So if 3 independent labs generate
positive results due to mistakes, it's 1 in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of
happening. In my book, if there was a 1 in 10 chance of a
professional scientist generating such errors, he should be fired;
but that's just me.
Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the
chance of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in
replication would be 1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000
Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The
mathematical definition of Impossible is if something has a chance
of 10^-50. Such a position is a whopping, gigantic, humungous four
thousand Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGnitude less than
impossible. I tell you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible
to be “conservative” with the numbers (which is about on the order
of the number of molecules in the universe), that is 4400 orders of
magnitude less than impossible.
https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold
fusions, self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible
applications.
Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of
the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?
q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
