date:20090930


At 08:45 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:

Please note that Dr. Swartz has not as yet posted the URLs of the papers
to Vortex.


I posted a URL to the two papers Swartz cited, and those 
republications of the journal that I linked to have many more papers 
by Swartz, he's done a lot of work. However, I didn't notice him 
giving permission for reproduction. Simply that the papers exist on 
newenergytimes.com indicates nothing about permission. NET may or may 
not have permission from Swartz, and may or may not have permission 
from the original publshers, and that's between NET and them


It was not easy to find those papers. What I found at first were 
other papers that had the two papers in question as references, but 
not the papers. Then I noticed the file name, that it contained the 
juornal volume and issue number, and guessed that if I changed the 
filename at NET, I'd link to the other issues of the journal. Bingo. 
It looks like NET has the complete Journal of New Energy? That's 
really cool, thanks, Steve, your work is highly appreciated. See you in March.

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket


At 08:22 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:

Interesting.  As a total outsider, of course I'm in no position to
confirm any of this, but it makes more sense than anything else I've
heard or seen written about this strange situation.


This is the point I've been trying to make to Dr. Swartz. Your 
reaction is predictable. It would be predictable even if Dr. Swartz 
were absolutely right, and Rothwell were being a total jerk. I used 
the term "obsession" because I don't know a better one. And I know it 
from inside, all too well. Fastest way to lose influence with people: 
appear obsessed. You could be reading geometric proofs to them and 
they would not trust it one bit.

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket


At 07:08 PM 9/30/2009, Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:

  Seems you were just exposed as a liar, Jed.


Because he didn't completely quote you? Dr. Swartz, just about every 
word you write here gets you in deeper. Stop. Seriously. You can defy 
this advice, and it will hurt me not at all, it will hurt Rothwell 
not at all, it will only hurt you.


And Jed, not a bad idea if you also take a break. I don't see any 
profit in this for you either.

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket


At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

1. Upload your papers to your own damn web site.
2. Give me explicit, public permission to copy them.

If I see you have erased them from your site I will erase them from 
LENR-CANR faster than you can say knife, so don't try that cute 
little trick either. Anyway, it'll never happen. You will never 
publish anything on line, and now everyone knows why. Game over for 
you. You'll have to find some other way to intimidate people.


Jed, I imagine you would know this, but I'll repeat it. According to 
my understanding, if you are not profiting from publication, and you 
have reasonable evidence of permission, the most that a copyright 
holder could do is to demand that you take the material down. NET 
appears to host some material under a claim of fair use, which, while 
it is shaky, NET is nonprofit and, again, if their use is excessive, 
outside of what is considered "fair use," the risk to them is only 
that they may be requested to remove the documents. I would say that 
explicit permission from Dr. Swartz, whether given in public or 
privately, but in a way that you can verify that it came from him, 
would allow you to host the materials in complete safety, no matter 
what he subsequently did, unless he notifies you that he is 
withdrawing permission.


He sent you registered mail? I can understand why that might put you 
off your feed. Most people would take that as threatening unless 
there was a check in it. I could tell a story

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

Jed, if Dr. Swartz is correct about your propensity for anaphylactic 
shock, you either should not read this or you should have an epi-pen handy.


At 06:31 PM 9/30/2009, Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Rothwell: "Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later 
I got electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter 
Hagelstein. I have printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and 
I could always scan them."



  Well at last, Rothwell finally admits he did receive those copies
from me. Seems his previous story, based on falsehoods, is eroding
little by little.


Rothwell "admitted" nothing indicating any prior falsehood. I've 
decided to reveal that I had a very odd exchange with Swartz. He 
didn't threaten me, it is more like he was vaguely threatening Storms 
based on something I wrote about a comment Storms had made to me, 
calling it "libel," and when I noted that Storms wasn't responsible 
for what I wrote, he went on a similar apparent quest to demonstrate 
that I was deceptive, seemingly trying to prove to me that I'd 
contradicted myself. I write "apparent" and "seemingly" because it 
all really made no sense to me, what Swartz was about; I have a 
sense, though, of great displaced anger about something.


I was going to suggest that both Swartz and Rothwell essentially shut 
up about this, but the things that Rothwell brought up, if accurate, 
would certainly represent a need to disclose. To Dr. Swartz, I'd 
suggest that he become clear about what he wishes to accomplish here, 
what's the purpose of this exchange?


Now, as to the "real dispute."


=


Rothwell: "However, this has nothing to do with our dispute."


  Ah yes.  The indelible dispute.

  The real dispute is that a number of years ago
I exposed Rothwell's scientific error
on flow measurements, along with several others on spf.


I was not aware that Rothwell was an experimental scientist. He's a 
writer and editor.



He was running an experiment claiming "kilowatts".


How about some links or pointers to sources, Dr. Swartz?


 Some noted
that kilowatts of power dissipation produce a lot of damage
to the materials. Others noted he was measuring without a
pressure head, and I noted that he failed to account for
Bernard instability.  Basically, by failing to calibrate,
and by using a bad paradigm involving flow in a vertical path,
Rothwell got a phoney 1 kilowatt, a false positive,
henceforth "kilowatt". Now, when Dr. Patterson's cell
was used in a correct configuration it appears to have
gotten a very respectable 0.8 watts excess heat, which
is impressive if done for a long amount of time, and with
calibrations.


No sources or references.


Note that the reason Jed does not like my papers is that
we demonstrated that Bernard instability was giving
over-estimations of excess heat in vertically positioned flow calorimeters.


I find this rather unlikely. But I'd love to see the papers. Where 
can I see them?



I published a series of papers on how flow calorimetry was
susceptible to vertical flow in the flow calorimetry system,
and all hell broke loose by Jed.  Rothwell has periodically
decompensated (like now).


Can you show a connection between your publication of papers and how 
"hell broke loose"? I wasn't aware that Jed had supernatural powers. 
Jed can be caustic, sure. But I haven't seen him lie, though his 
inferences about people's motives I don't necessarily trust. On the 
other hand, Dr. Swartz, you have succeeded in convincing me, through 
this exchange, that you might not be trustworthy. It wasn't Rothwell 
who accomplished that, it was you.



But phoney "calibrations" like Rothwell's need to be
examined, studied, and revealed.  The sooner the better.


Rothwell isn't an experimental scientist, though perhaps he did some 
dabbling that I'm unaware of. If he did do experiments and 
calorimetry, I wouldn't be surprised to see him making some mistakes. So?



 Furthermore, this is important because it is a large error,
and the error could be correctable.


Since I've never heard of this "work," it isn't likely to be 
*terribly* important. It's not mentioned in any of the reviews I've seen.


Okay, this must be what Swartz is talking about; he's welcome to 
correct me if I'm wrong:


Rothwell, J., CETI's 1 kilowatt cold fusion device denonstrated. 
Infinite Energy, 1996. 1(5&6): p. 18.


That wasn't his work, it was CETI's work. He's a writer. That was 
13-effing-years ago. I searched for information about what was 
actually in the article. I finally found 
http://www.padrak.com/ine/ROTHWELLCF.html. Now, what's the problem? 
Rothwell reports some measurements he made, he does not appear to 
make any firm conclusions, and uses conditional language. And where 
are Patterson cells now? Now, if someone were to follow up on this, 
it might be of great interest, but until and unless someone does, it 
is of no practical importance. If those cells worked, well, that 
would certai

RE: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

2009-09-30 Thread Mark Iverson

Dr. Swartz:
 
You should read carefully Stephen Lawrence's post today, 9/30/2009, at 6:16PM.
 
You might want to recind your comment since Stephen included quotes from as far 
back as 5 Dec 2004
which CLEARLY show that Jed has ALWAYS admitted that he got the CD from you, 
but that he couldn't
read it.  Thus, your comment about his "lying about getting the CD", and 
"finally admitting he got
it" are obviously an exaggeration at the very least, if not a conscious attempt 
to deceive.
 
All I want to know now is when are you going to post a reply to Vortex that 
specifically gives Jed
permission to download and post your papers on lenr-canr's website 
Shouldn't take you more than
2 or 3 minutes to compose that and post it here... I'll be looking for it in 
the morning!
 
Cheers,

-Mark

  _  

From: Dr. Mitchell Swartz [mailto:m...@theworld.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: bd...@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket



At 09:26 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell, proven disingenuous, wrote:


Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 

Update:  Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on Vortex, 

as of about an hour ago.  I don't know if it's one of the papers Jed was 

considering uploading or not." 


Rothwell: "I have not considered uploading any paper by Swartz for the last 10 
years. "



There are three issues here:

  First, the truth continues to slowly leak
 out of disingenuous Jed, little by little, as his stories change.

--



Rothwell: "Not since he first threatened me."


   Second, what utter nonsense.  This totally new fabrication
and story du jour by Rothwell is laughable.

   Rothwell was asked for the proof of his libelous allegation of 'extortion'.
He has been silent except to attempt to change the subject over and over.
Therefore, Rothwell is not a man of honor.  
He is shown to have been dishonest, and has failed to apologize.

-

   Third, flashback: 

  NOTA BENE: Rothwell's latest decompensation and picking of 
a fight followed a simple question:

Rothwell had posted:



{referring to the docs given to the DOE panel]
Rothwell: "The documents they were given are listed here:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions
- Jed"


  I thanked Jed, pointed out that I had not seen the table, 
and that one observation was that when the papers which were
distributed to the DOE in 2004 (as they assembled to consider 
CF/LANR) were examined, the table indicates that all of the papers 
of Prof. Dash and I, although possibly referenced, were apparently 
absent from the printed papers handed out to the DOE 
--- even though ***ironically*** Dr.Dash and I were (and remain, I think) 
the only ones who have actually conducted open cold fusion demonstrations
in the USA at a national meeting. 

   Methinks Rothwell protests too much -- for reasons unclear.







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.115/2404 - Release Date: 09/30/09 
05:52:00

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion


At 06:30 PM 9/30/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

Note that in at least
one of Dr. Oriani's papers he reports ionizing radiation emitted 
from the vapor

above a CF cell.


I don't think that there is any substantial suspicion that this 
radiation results from anything other than decay of radioactive 
products coming from the cathode. (Or maybe some level of radiation 
from the cathode.)


 I think any interest in the field is due to our common need to 
find a new source

of energy, so I think your belief that people only want to read about lattice
based CF is probably misguided.


He didn't say that. He said that people interested in lattice-based 
CF might not like having a lot of papers on a lot of other 
only-peripherally related subjects.



I also think that while a lattice may well *frequently* provide the necessary
environment, it may not be a *necessary* requirement.


I'm unaware of anything other than muon-catalyzed fusion that 
bypasses the Coulomb barrier, without substantial confinement. It 
might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation 
approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed fusion, 
basically a protein, I assume, setting up confinement conditions that 
facilitate fusion.

RE: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

2009-09-30 Thread Frank Roarty

Abd,

  I don't think Mills papers or theory can be used without
interpretation because the fractional states are actually relativistic. I do
believe his data should be considered valuable as a measure to confirm new
theories. I believe that soon someone with more math skill than I will
calculate the DiFiore et al acceleration and redirected energy of a heated
reactor in this confined cavity to better account for Mills output heat
energy than he did. I understand this thread is about what information
should and shouldn't be included on the LENR site but fractional orbit
electrons keep detouring this subject and are not possible except
relativistically. This is what Naudts suggested in 2005 but when Ron
Bourgoin solved for the 137 fractional states in 2007 he did not realize the
significance of Naudts statement or that the use of the Poincare
transformation with an electron was only possible because of a relativistic
perspective - A 1996 paper "Cavity QED*
  " by Zofia
Bialynicka-Birula supports the use of these equations normally associated
with photons because of the destruction of isotropy inside a cavity and
resulting effect on invariance under transformations of the Poincare group
which therefore establishes the relativistic nature of their solutions. Put
simply math performed from a relativistic perspective allows electrons to
apparently occupy the same spatial coordinates and states because from an
external perspective these hydrogen populations can have the same spatial
coordinates but different temporal co-ordinates.

Regards

Fran

-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

At 11:16 AM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>In some ways you have to draw an arbitrary line, for the convenience 

>of the reader. We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I 

>suppose they are cold fusion.

Most of Mill's "claims" are only peripheral to cold fusion or 

low-energy nuclear reactions. If hydrinos exist, and if there is some 

mechanism for hydrino formation in the experiments, the reduced-orbit 

electrons might more effectively shield the Coulomb repulsion and 

thus catalyze fusion, but that doesn't make articles on hydrinos, 

themselves, relevant, nor are the BlackLight Power "reactors" 

relevant, that's definitely not cold fusion, but hydrino chemistry. 

New kind of chemistry, but not nuclear.

>  This is not because I have anything thing against Mills' work. It 

> is because people come to LENR-CANR to learn about metal-lattice 

> based cold fusion -- the Fleischmann Pons effect, or whatever you 

> want to call it. It would annoy the readers to find many papers 

> about other subjects. If they want to learn about Mills they will 

> go to his site.

It could be argued that some of Mills' papers are relevant to cold 

fusion. On the other hand, the political implications are 

problematic. Mills is working out his own karma, so to speak; if he 

manages to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and then someone else 

making a hat from the specifications likewise pulls out a rabbit, the 

whole issue might bear revisiting; we are likely to know within a few 

years. Meanwhile mentioning hydrinos simply confirms for critics how 

nutty these cold fusion people are. While we can't run our lives 

based on those opinions, we also might wisely avoid unnecessarily 

feeding the beast with tasty tidbits.

Really, did Storms (2007) actually have to mention spontaneous human 

combustion? It was speculation upon speculation. (p. 142.) He does 

have much more reason to discuss Mills, and he does it in quite some 

depth. For some unknown reason, the more extensive discussion (p. 

184-186) is missing from the index; he actually gives much more ink 

to Mills than to any other proposed explanations.

[Vo]:OT: Honour

2009-09-30 Thread Harry Veeder


http://www.paralumun.com/quoteshonour.htm

Honour Quotes

Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lostHonour Quote by
Arthur Schopenhauer.

The honors of this world, what are they but puff, and emptiness, and
peril of falling?Honour Quote by Joseph Addison.

Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in anotherHonour
Quote by Charles Caleb Colton.

Morality regulates the acts of man as a private individual; honor, his
acts as a public manHonour Quote by Esteban Echeverría.

When about to commit a base deed, respect thyself, though there is no
witness. [Lat., Turpe quid ausurus, te sine teste time.]Honour Quote
by Decimus Magnus Ausonius.

The best memorial for a mighty man is to gain honor ere deathHonour
Quote by Decimus Magnus Ausonius.

Honor is like a widow, won With brisk attempt and putting onHonour
Quote by Samuel Butler.

As quick as lightning, in the breach Just in the place where honour's
lodged, As wise philosophers have judged, Because a kick in that place
more Hurts honour than deep wounds beforeHonour Quote by Samuel Butler.

Honor lies in honest toilHonour Quote by Steven Grover Cleveland.

Honor is like a steep island without a shore: one cannot return once one
is outsideHonour Quote by Nicholas Bouleau.

The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our
spoonsHonour Quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The paths of glory lead but to the graveby Thomas Gray.

Better to die ten thousand deaths, Than wound my honourHonour Quote
by Joseph Addison.

Content thyself to be obscurely good. When vice prevails and impious men
bear away, The post of honor is a private stationHonour Quote by
Joseph Addison.

Virtue is the fount whence honour springsHonour Quote by Christopher
Marlowe.

If he that in the field is slain Be in the bed of honour lain, He that
is beaten may be said To lie in Honour's truckle-bedHonour Quote by
Samuel Butler.

Now, while the honour thou hast got Is spick and span newHonour
Quote by Samuel Butler.

Honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on?
How then? Can honour set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the
grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no skill in surgery then? No. What is
honour? A word. What is in that word? Honour. What is that honour? Air.
A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died o' WednesdayHonour Quote
by William Shakespeare.
--- Begin Message ---



At 09:26 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell, proven disingenuous, wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 

Update:  Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on
Vortex, 
as of about an hour ago.  I don't know if it's one of the papers
Jed was 
considering uploading or not."

Rothwell: "I have not considered uploading any paper by Swartz for
the last 10 years. "
There are three issues here:
  First, the truth continues to slowly leak
 out of disingenuous Jed, little by little, as his stories
change.
--

Rothwell: "Not since he
first threatened me."
   Second, what utter nonsense.  This totally new
fabrication
and story du jour by Rothwell is laughable.
   Rothwell was asked for the proof of his libelous allegation
of 'extortion'.
He has been silent except to attempt to change the subject over and
over.
Therefore, Rothwell is not a man of honor.  
He is shown to have been dishonest, and has failed to apologize.
-

   Third, flashback: 
  NOTA BENE: Rothwell's latest decompensation and picking of 
a fight followed a simple question:
Rothwell had posted:
{referring to the docs given to
the DOE panel]
Rothwell: "The documents they were given are listed here:

http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions
- Jed"
  I thanked Jed, pointed out that I had not seen the table, 
and that one observation was that when the papers which were
distributed to the DOE in 2004 (as they assembled to consider 
CF/LANR) were examined, the table indicates that all of the papers 
of Prof. Dash and I, although possibly referenced, were apparently 
absent from the printed papers handed out to the DOE 
--- even though ***ironically*** Dr.Dash and I were (and remain, I think)

the only ones who have actually conducted open cold fusion
demonstrations
in the USA at a national meeting. 
   Methinks Rothwell protests too much -- for reasons
unclear.






--- End Message ---

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:

>   I thanked Jed, pointed out that I had not seen the table,
> and that one observation was that when the papers which were
> distributed to the DOE in 2004 (as they assembled to consider
> CF/LANR) were examined, the table indicates that all of the papers
> of Prof. Dash and I, although possibly referenced, were apparently
> absent from the printed papers handed out to the DOE
> --- even though ***ironically*** Dr.Dash and I were (and remain, I think)
> the only ones who have actually conducted open cold fusion demonstrations
> in the USA at a national meeting.
>

That is completely wrong. The table indicates no such thing.

As far as I know, every paper in the references was given to the DOE
panelists. I could be wrong about that; I did not go through the box
verifying every last paper, and this was years ago.

However, as I clearly stated on the web page and here, the only papers
listed in that table are the ones that I have uploaded to LENR-CANR.org. I
have most of the others but they are either on paper (not scanned) or I do
not have permission to upload them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket




At 09:26 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell, proven disingenuous, wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 

Update:  Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on
Vortex, 
as of about an hour ago.  I don't know if it's one of the papers
Jed was 
considering uploading or not."

Rothwell: "I have not considered uploading any paper by Swartz for
the last 10 years. "
There are three issues here:
  First, the truth continues to slowly leak
 out of disingenuous Jed, little by little, as his stories
change.
--

Rothwell: "Not since he
first threatened me."
   Second, what utter nonsense.  This totally new
fabrication
and story du jour by Rothwell is laughable.
   Rothwell was asked for the proof of his libelous allegation
of 'extortion'.
He has been silent except to attempt to change the subject over and
over.
Therefore, Rothwell is not a man of honor.  
He is shown to have been dishonest, and has failed to apologize.
-

   Third, flashback: 
  NOTA BENE: Rothwell's latest decompensation and picking of 
a fight followed a simple question:
Rothwell had posted:
{referring to the docs given to
the DOE panel]
Rothwell: "The documents they were given are listed here:

http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions
- Jed"
  I thanked Jed, pointed out that I had not seen the table, 
and that one observation was that when the papers which were
distributed to the DOE in 2004 (as they assembled to consider 
CF/LANR) were examined, the table indicates that all of the papers 
of Prof. Dash and I, although possibly referenced, were apparently 
absent from the printed papers handed out to the DOE 
--- even though ***ironically*** Dr.Dash and I were (and remain, I think)

the only ones who have actually conducted open cold fusion
demonstrations
in the USA at a national meeting. 
   Methinks Rothwell protests too much -- for reasons
unclear.

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

At 04:13 PM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Chris Zell wrote:

Umm. where might these alternative sites be, that offer papers
on transmutation? I think reading them might be an enriching experience.

That was a paper by Roberto Monti. He has attended several cold
fusion conferences. He does Medieval lead-to-gold style
transmutation. Gene Mallove dabbled in it. You can find his work on
the Internet in various places by searching for his name.

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4alchem.htm

I think it is far enough removed from cold fusion that it should be
considered off-topic.

Jed, your web site is not "coldfusion.org," but "lenr-canr.org." He's
definitely talking about low energy nuclear reactions! He claims to
have published a paper shortly before Fleischmann's publication in
1989 (in J. Electrochem), in Italian, with his "new model of the
atom," and that this model "made it easy for him to understand "what
had really happened and where Fleischmann and Pons were wrong." If
he's not blowing smoke, he predicted the kinds of transmutations that
were later found by Mizuno, Brockris, etc. Definitely of interest.
And definitely "out there."

[...]
As Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, we now have some papers by Vysotskii. He
published them in recent ICCF proceedings and then sent me an
earlier one, so why not?

He's also published in the ACS LENR Sourcebook. The big mystery for
me is that I've seen no sign of any attempts to replicate
Vyosotskii's work. Some of it seems not only simple, but definitive.
When Mossbauer spectroscopy detects Fe-57, it's there. That can't be
simulated. Hence I Have some idea that a replication kit might be
possible for Vyosotskii's work. It would involve finding an
affordable Mossbauer analytical service. I suppose I could try to
build a cheap Mossbauer spectrograph, that would make for a fun
science kit all by itself. But that's not where I'm starting! I'm
starting with what's already been replicated The transmutation of
radioactive waste, which is what his latest work has been about, is
not so easy a topic for "home LENR kits," unless one happens to have
some nuclear waste lying about. Fun for the kids?

My kids' mother would kill me. But a little deinococcus radiodurans,
maybe I can get away with. Why did that bacterium evolve the capacity
to withstand tremendous radiation levels? It might be fun to have
some as pets, probably cheaper to feed than my cat. Could it be that
it needed the radiation resistance to handle damage from the LENR it
was catalyzing? Where does one go about getting some?

http://www.atcc.org/ATCCAdvancedCatalogSearch/ProductDetails/tabid/452/Default.aspx?ATCCNum=13939&Template=bacteria.
$195.00, plus you have to sign away your first-born. Non-commercial
use only, except, of course, for "industry-sponsored academic use."
The culture is considered safe, non-pathogenic.

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I
> >suppose they are cold fusion. This is not because I have anything
> >thing against Mills' work. It is because people come to LENR-CANR to
> >learn about metal-lattice based cold fusion -- the Fleischmann Pons
> >effect, or whatever you want to call it.
>
> I have suspected this bias for some time, and I suspect the influence is
> primarily that of Dr. Storms. Personally, I think that restricting CF
> (general
> term) to metal lattices may be too severe a restriction. Note that in at
> least
> one of Dr. Oriani's papers he reports ionizing radiation emitted from the
> vapor
> above a CF cell.
>

Bias is too strong a word. It is more a case of neat-freak programmer (me)
who likes to keep things in neat categories. I meant what I said: people
come to LENR-CANR looking for one thing, and I don't want them to find much
stuff that doesn't seem to fit. That annoys me when I go to other
specialized websites.

The beauty of the Internet is that anyone can find Mills in an instant, so
they don't need me.

A few unclassifiable odds things such as Oriani or Vysotskii will not bother
readers. Think of it this way. You go to the Freer Gallery to say Oriental
art. It is chock full of magnificent ancient paintings and sculptures from
China and Japan. There are also a few paintings by Whistler interspersed
among them -- also masterpieces. They don't bother the viewer even though
they are "off topic" as it were, because Whistler was influenced by the
Japanese and his work looks wonderful in juxtaposition with it, and there
are only a few paintings (plus one dreadful kitchy room full of his stuff
that he designed which you should avoid). That's fine, but if they started
cramming in pop-art, op-art or Renaissance Italian art it would be
exasperating. You go across the Mall to see that.

I don't recall ever discussing this with Ed. I also do not recall Mills or
anyone else in his team submitting a paper to LENR-CANR, although I met with
them at MIT and at other time. At MIT I got the distinct impression they
considered their gigantic bulk Ni experiments to be a form of cold fusion,
and I expect most cold fusion researchers think so. I have thought about
uploading their MIT slides but I can't find any of the authors to ask
permission. (And as you have seen, some authors do go ape shit when you
upload without permission!)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion


At 11:16 AM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

In some ways you have to draw an arbitrary line, for the convenience 
of the reader. We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I 
suppose they are cold fusion.


Most of Mill's "claims" are only peripheral to cold fusion or 
low-energy nuclear reactions. If hydrinos exist, and if there is some 
mechanism for hydrino formation in the experiments, the reduced-orbit 
electrons might more effectively shield the Coulomb repulsion and 
thus catalyze fusion, but that doesn't make articles on hydrinos, 
themselves, relevant, nor are the BlackLight Power "reactors" 
relevant, that's definitely not cold fusion, but hydrino chemistry. 
New kind of chemistry, but not nuclear.


 This is not because I have anything thing against Mills' work. It 
is because people come to LENR-CANR to learn about metal-lattice 
based cold fusion -- the Fleischmann Pons effect, or whatever you 
want to call it. It would annoy the readers to find many papers 
about other subjects. If they want to learn about Mills they will 
go to his site.


It could be argued that some of Mills' papers are relevant to cold 
fusion. On the other hand, the political implications are 
problematic. Mills is working out his own karma, so to speak; if he 
manages to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and then someone else 
making a hat from the specifications likewise pulls out a rabbit, the 
whole issue might bear revisiting; we are likely to know within a few 
years. Meanwhile mentioning hydrinos simply confirms for critics how 
nutty these cold fusion people are. While we can't run our lives 
based on those opinions, we also might wisely avoid unnecessarily 
feeding the beast with tasty tidbits.


Really, did Storms (2007) actually have to mention spontaneous human 
combustion? It was speculation upon speculation. (p. 142.) He does 
have much more reason to discuss Mills, and he does it in quite some 
depth. For some unknown reason, the more extensive discussion (p. 
184-186) is missing from the index; he actually gives much more ink 
to Mills than to any other proposed explanations.

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Update:  Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on Vortex,
> as of about an hour ago.  I don't know if it's one of the papers Jed was
> considering uploading or not.
>

I have not considered uploading any paper by Swartz for the last 10 years.
Not since he first threatened me. I have no desire to upload this or any
other paper of his. I think this "positional" thesis of his is wrong.

However, I am always willing to upload papers for any author, even ones who
I despise. My opinion of the author or the paper never enters into it. I am
a librarian, not an editor, so I accept anything that has been published.
There are many papers at LENR-CANR that I think are garbage -- some really
awful. You all know that we have papers by leading skeptics, and you can be
sure I disagree with them!

If a reader asks me for a recommendation I would not point to a paper I
disagree with. That's a different story. People do ask me, just as they ask
librarians in bricks-and-mortar libraries. Librarians are allowed to have
opinions, but they are not supposed to censor, and I never do.

People ask me several times a week, but they download 3,000 to 5,000 papers
a week on their own, so I do not have much influence over the readers. I
wouldn't want influence.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> Update:  Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on Vortex,
> as of about an hour ago.  I don't know if it's one of the papers Jed was
> considering uploading or not.

Why now?

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket



Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> Interesting.
> 
> Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
>> At 03:35 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell wrote:
>>> Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:
>>>
 I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why
 Mr. Rothwell wasn't able to "read/scan" what I presume were hardcopy
 documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior encounter.
 Presumably such "hardcopy" could have been scanned. . . .
>>> Rothwell: "Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later I
>>> got electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter Hagelstein. I
>>> have printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and I could always
>>> scan them."
>>
>>   Well at last, Rothwell finally admits he did receive those copies
>> from me.
> 
> No, that's not what Jed's words said.  In case anyone isn't paying
> attention, I think it's worth pointing out that Dr. Swartz is drawing an
> incorrect inference.
> 
> Jed said, as he has repeatedly said, that he received a CD from Swartz
> which he could not read.  Nothing new there.
> 
> In this case he also says he received electronic copies from Peter
> Hagelstein, *not* from Mitch Swartz.  There is no "admission" of
> receiving anything from Dr. Swartz here.  Dr. Swartz's statement that
> Jed "admits" he did receive copies "from ME [Dr. Swartz]" is not correct.
> 
> 
>> Seems his previous story, based on falsehoods, is eroding
>> little by little.
> 
> No, this statement from Dr. Swartz is wrong.   The statement from Jed is
> entirely consistent with what he's said all along, and there is no
> "erosion" in evidence.
> 
> It's not consistent with what Mitch Swartz has said all along, of
> course, but that's a different issue.
> 
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> =
>>
>>> Rothwell: "You have to understand that Swartz uses this and other
>>> forums to ran an extortion and intimidation racket. He has been doing
>>> this for years. He tried to nail me twice, and he nailed some other
>>> people who contacted me. I don't know if this is a hobby or a
>>> business. You can see half of his scheme in the messages he posted
>>> here. It works like this:
>> I never did this.
>>
>> Rothwell is frothing at the mouth again.  I have contributed to cold fusion
>> education through the COLD FUSION TIMES and have
>> lost money doing it for two decades.  We even hosted
>> a free seminar, the LANR Colloquium at MIT this year.
>>
>>   Where was the extortion?  What the hell is Rothwell
>> talking about?
>>
>> Rothwell is challenged to prove it, or admit he is a screwball,
>> afflicted with paranoia.
>>
>> =
>>
>>> Rothwell: "1. He goads the mark, as he has done here with me. Or he
>>> makes nice."
>>   When I gave Rothwell a ride from Gene Mallove's funeral in NH to Boston
>> Newbury Street (and handed him a CD which he never admitted
>> until the above) 
> 
> He never admitted to receiving the CD until just now?  That's bullshit.
> 
> On 5 December 2004 (almost five years ago) Jed said in a post to Vortex
> that he had received the CD-ROM from Swartz and could not read it.  His
> "story" on the CD has not changed a whit in the last five years and
> there is no reason to doubt it. (At least a third of the home-burned CDs
> I receive are unreadable on my equipment, and there's no reason to
> believe Jed has much better luck than that).
> 
> Furthermore on 5 December 2004 Jed said, in his post to Vortex,
> 
> "I could not read the CDROM. Swartz never gave me a URL for the web. If
> he has one, he should repeat it HERE AND NOW, and I will transfer the
> paper to LENR-CANR in a day or two. If he will not post the URL here,
> all of the readers here will see that he is bullshitting us."
> 
> That was nearly five years ago.  Jed's recent statements regarding
> Swartz's papers could almost have been cut and pasted from that message;
> he has not changed his "story" at all since then, as far as I can see.
> 
> Please note that Dr. Swartz has not as yet posted the URLs of the papers
> to Vortex.

Update:  Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on Vortex,
as of about an hour ago.  I don't know if it's one of the papers Jed was
considering uploading or not.

The point of the posted paper seems to be that flow calorimeters must be
calibrated and must be operated at a significantly nonzero flow rate,
which seem like reasonable conclusions.

Re: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science

Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:

 "POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS"
> has been at the web site since 1996.
> The url is 
> http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html
>
> Is paper 1 on the LENR-CANR web site?
>

Nope. Obviously I don't keep close track of your website. I wasn't aware it
was uploaded, and you have never given me permission to upload or copy this
or anything else. Anytime I even asked you threatened to sue me, so I
stopped asking years ago.

You went ballistic right here in Vortex when I uploaded an abstract, for
crying out loud. Everyone knows you do this kind of thing, although they
didn't know you played the "settle of court" game to intimidate, silence and
fleece anyone who crosses you or criticizes you. I have heard from other
people you did that to. Gene told me don't ask you for permission, never
quote you, and and don't respond to your threats. I did as he suggested all
these years, out of respect for him, but today I got fed up seeing you play
me and make me look like a fool, so I decided to tell people what's been
going on.

By the way, this "positional variation" hypothesis is damn nonsense, as I
and others pointed out here. Complete garbage, similar to the Jones
recombination hypothesis. However, I would upload it to LENR-CANR if you
gave permission. Why not? We have lots of garbage. That's a good thing,
really. It lets readers see who is right and who is talking all out their
heads.

Anyway, you are in a hole and I suggest you stop digging it deeper.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science



Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
> 
> 
> At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> 
>> Rothwell; "Anyway, say what you like, but don't try your little tricks
>> on me, in public or in private. And if you sincerely want your papers
>> uploaded at LENR-CANR (as if!), you know the drill and you know why I
>> insist on it. Everyone else now knows. You have to:
>> 1. Upload your papers to your own damn web site.
>> 2. Give me explicit, public permission to copy them.
>> If I see you have erased them from your site I will erase them from
>> LENR-CANR faster than you can say knife, so don't try that cute little
>> trick either. Anyway, it'll never happen. You will never publish
>> anything on line, and now everyone knows why. Game over for you.
>> You'll have to find some other way to intimidate people.
>> - Jed"
> 
> 
> Clever rouse. Complicated. But already exposed as hype.
> Beside, I only care about the science and engineering.
> 
>Actually, probably the two most important papers which
> show Rothwell's errors (which result from his disdain for
> calibration) are
> 1.  Swartz, M, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow
> Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996)
> and
> 2. Swartz, M, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release
> Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy,
> 1, 3, 219-221 (1996)
> 
> But, despite Jed's twisting of this (and I did not think
> it was possible to twist anything such as he has here)
> 
>  "POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS"
> has been at the web site since 1996.
> The url is http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html

Yes, it's there all right, along with a copyright notice at the bottom
of the page.

Jed also asked for permission to be given in public for him to upload it.

Dr. Swartz doesn't seem to have provided that.


> 
> Is paper 1 on the LENR-CANR web site?
> 
> Not there.
> 
> Why? 

Perhaps because he doesn't have written permission to upload it?

Why not grant him permission, in a post to Vortex, and see what he does?

Wouldn't that be an interesting experiment?

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

Interesting.

Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
> 
> At 03:35 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell wrote:
>> Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:
>>
>>> I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why
>>> Mr. Rothwell wasn't able to "read/scan" what I presume were hardcopy
>>> documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior encounter.
>>> Presumably such "hardcopy" could have been scanned. . . .
>>
>> Rothwell: "Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later I
>> got electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter Hagelstein. I
>> have printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and I could always
>> scan them."
> 
> 
>   Well at last, Rothwell finally admits he did receive those copies
> from me.

No, that's not what Jed's words said.  In case anyone isn't paying
attention, I think it's worth pointing out that Dr. Swartz is drawing an
incorrect inference.

Jed said, as he has repeatedly said, that he received a CD from Swartz
which he could not read.  Nothing new there.

In this case he also says he received electronic copies from Peter
Hagelstein, *not* from Mitch Swartz.  There is no "admission" of
receiving anything from Dr. Swartz here.  Dr. Swartz's statement that
Jed "admits" he did receive copies "from ME [Dr. Swartz]" is not correct.

> Seems his previous story, based on falsehoods, is eroding
> little by little.

No, this statement from Dr. Swartz is wrong.   The statement from Jed is
entirely consistent with what he's said all along, and there is no
"erosion" in evidence.

It's not consistent with what Mitch Swartz has said all along, of
course, but that's a different issue.

[ ... ]

> 
> =
> 
>> Rothwell: "You have to understand that Swartz uses this and other
>> forums to ran an extortion and intimidation racket. He has been doing
>> this for years. He tried to nail me twice, and he nailed some other
>> people who contacted me. I don't know if this is a hobby or a
>> business. You can see half of his scheme in the messages he posted
>> here. It works like this:
> 
> I never did this.
> 
> Rothwell is frothing at the mouth again.  I have contributed to cold fusion
> education through the COLD FUSION TIMES and have
> lost money doing it for two decades.  We even hosted
> a free seminar, the LANR Colloquium at MIT this year.
> 
>   Where was the extortion?  What the hell is Rothwell
> talking about?
> 
> Rothwell is challenged to prove it, or admit he is a screwball,
> afflicted with paranoia.
> 
> =
> 
>> Rothwell: "1. He goads the mark, as he has done here with me. Or he
>> makes nice."
> 
>   When I gave Rothwell a ride from Gene Mallove's funeral in NH to Boston
> Newbury Street (and handed him a CD which he never admitted
> until the above) 

He never admitted to receiving the CD until just now?  That's bullshit.

On 5 December 2004 (almost five years ago) Jed said in a post to Vortex
that he had received the CD-ROM from Swartz and could not read it.  His
"story" on the CD has not changed a whit in the last five years and
there is no reason to doubt it. (At least a third of the home-burned CDs
I receive are unreadable on my equipment, and there's no reason to
believe Jed has much better luck than that).

Furthermore on 5 December 2004 Jed said, in his post to Vortex,

"I could not read the CDROM. Swartz never gave me a URL for the web. If
he has one, he should repeat it HERE AND NOW, and I will transfer the
paper to LENR-CANR in a day or two. If he will not post the URL here,
all of the readers here will see that he is bullshitting us."

That was nearly five years ago.  Jed's recent statements regarding
Swartz's papers could almost have been cut and pasted from that message;
he has not changed his "story" at all since then, as far as I can see.

Please note that Dr. Swartz has not as yet posted the URLs of the papers
to Vortex.

RE: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science

2009-09-30 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Dr. Swartz,

 

I gather you do not see eye-to-eye with Mr. Rothwell on certain experimental
procedures. That in itself is not an unusual development, particularly as
researchers go about collecting data on the frontiers of what most in our
society are likely to consider to be an unconventional science. Certainly,
there will continue to be disagreements concerning how best to record
experimental data. I gather the art of collecting accurate calorimetry data
can be exceedingly difficult. I've heard that many physicists loath to deal
with any kind of recorded heat collected through calorimetry.

 

In the meantime, what do you expect to gain by claiming that Mr. Rothwell
has been caught "...frothing at the mouth again." Does this indicate a new
form of anomalous heat that CF researchers ought to research, assuming we
correctly account for the effects of Bernard instability?

 

BTW, I haven't a clue what "Barnard instability" is. I suppose I could look
up at Wiki, assuming it isn't another one of those forbidden topics.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benard_instability

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

Interesting.  As a total outsider, of course I'm in no position to
confirm any of this, but it makes more sense than anything else I've
heard or seen written about this strange situation.


Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:
> 
>> I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why Mr.
>> Rothwell wasn't able to "read/scan" what I presume were hardcopy
>> documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior encounter.
>> Presumably such "hardcopy" could have been scanned. . . .
> 
> Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later I got
> electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter Hagelstein. I have
> printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and I could always scan them.
> 
> However, this has nothing to do with our dispute. You have to understand
> that Swartz uses this and other forums to ran an extortion and
> intimidation racket. He has been doing this for years. He tried to nail
> me twice, and he nailed some other people who contacted me. I don't know
> if this is a hobby or a business. You can see half of his scheme in the
> messages he posted here. It works like this:
> 
> 1. He goads the mark, as he has done here with me. Or he makes nice.
> ("Mark" means the victim; the target.) The goal is to get the mark post
> some text from one of Swartz's papers, the way I posted his Abstract
> here. Or to upload the entire paper to a web site, or to print it. When
> he runs the "make nice" version he may hint it is okay to quote him but
> he never gives explicit permission.
> 
> 2. As soon as the text is posted or published he send e-mails and
> snail-mail letters to the mark threatening a lawsuit for copyright
> violations and for "stealing ideas" or what have you.
> 
> 3. The mark apologizes and settles out of court. Either he pays up or he
> agrees never to say anything bad about Swartz again.
> 
> He did this to me twice. The first time I thought it was a joke. The
> second time I wised up. I erased all electronic messages and manuscripts
> from him, and threw away all printed matter. There is not one file or
> scrap of paper in my office from him. I am thinking of deleting all of
> his papers from the LENR-CANR index, just to be safe.
> 
> Mallove and others urged me to keep quiet about it, which I would do,
> but from his recent messages I sense he is still out there running his
> little game, probably looking for new marks. So I suggest you beware of
> quoting any of his papers or uploading them. I wouldn't even discuss his
> work. You are asking for trouble. I am surely asking for trouble
> revealing this, but I do not respond well to intimidation.
> 
> I would upload his papers in the conditions I set, because as you see
> they preclude a lawsuit. Hundreds of people would see that he gave me
> permission! Obviously there is no chance he will upload his own work to
> his own website, or allow anyone to copy it, because that would wreck
> his scheme.
> 
> Several researchers have denied permission to upload papers. Of course
> that is their right and I have no objection. Some are hostile toward
> LENR-CANR and have taken steps to stop others from contributing to it,
> or spread false rumors about it. Of course many skeptics despise it. The
> ones at Wikipedia made it impossible to add a link to LENR-CANR anywhere
> in the English Wikipedia, and one of them (an American who reads no
> Japanese) tried to do the same thing in the Japanese edition. So I have
> many enemies who cause mischief. But Swartz is the only one who has
> tried to use LENR-CANR to extort money from me!
> 
> - Jed
>

[Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science




At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Rothwell; "Anyway, say what you like, but don't try your little 
tricks on me, in public or in private. And if you sincerely want 
your papers uploaded at LENR-CANR (as if!), you know the drill and 
you know why I insist on it. Everyone else now knows. You have to:

1. Upload your papers to your own damn web site.
2. Give me explicit, public permission to copy them.
If I see you have erased them from your site I will erase them from 
LENR-CANR faster than you can say knife, so don't try that cute 
little trick either. Anyway, it'll never happen. You will never 
publish anything on line, and now everyone knows why. Game over for 
you. You'll have to find some other way to intimidate people.

- Jed"



Clever rouse. Complicated. But already exposed as hype.
Beside, I only care about the science and engineering.

   Actually, probably the two most important papers which
show Rothwell's errors (which result from his disdain for
calibration) are
1.  Swartz, M, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996)
and
2. Swartz, M, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy,
1, 3, 219-221 (1996)

But, despite Jed's twisting of this (and I did not think
it was possible to twist anything such as he has here)

 "POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS"
has been at the web site since 1996.
The url is http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html

Is paper 1 on the LENR-CANR web site?

Not there.

Why? Because the paper discusses scientific error
on flow measurements, made in the past
along with several other very insightful
criticisms of Jed made on spf.  Jed
was running an experiment claiming "kilowatts".  Some noted
that kilowatts of power dissipation produce a lot of damage
to the materials --- but not in Jed's system.

 Others noted he was measuring without a
pressure head.  I noted that he failed to account for
Bernard instability.  Basically, by failing to calibrate,
and by using a bad paradigm involving flow in a vertical path,
Rothwell got a phoney 1 kilowatt, a false positive,
henceforth "kilowatt". Now, when Dr. Patterson's cell
was used in a correct configuration it appears to have
gotten a very respectable 0.8 watts excess heat, which
is impressive if done for a long amount of time, and with
calibrations.

  The potential errors from flow calorimetry arranged
vertical in Earth g-field are flow related.
They can potentially cause a large error, a false
positive amplification.
The error can be correctable, so why not just fix it?

  Dr. Mitchell Swartz

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket



At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Met Rothwell wrote:
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
wrote:
  Extort money?  It
iit a lie.
  I never did this.  Nor would I ever.
So, this time I will not be hearing from you or your attorney? That's a
relief. Maybe you should give back the money you extorted from
others.
If you do send any more extortion letters by registered mail or other
means, I will publish them here this time, instead of ignoring them as
Gene convinced me to do years ago. As I said, I don't respond well to
intimidation, especially not the third time around.

  Seems you were just exposed as a liar, Jed.
 What you edited out was:
"Where was the extortion?  What the hell is Rothwell
talking about?
Rothwell is challenged to prove it, or admit he is a screwball,
afflicted with paranoia."
Rothwell was silent, and could not stop editing what
someone wrote.   Edit. Censor. Rothwell.
Seems that there were not extortion attempts
as Rothwell lied when he posted this thread, to poison vortex.
Being that Rothwell has now been shown to be a proven liar,
once again, and that by he silence he has admitted he made 
the whole thing up,  there is nothing further to say.

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket


Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:


  Extort money?  It is a lie.
  I never did this.  Nor would I ever.


So, this time I will not be hearing from you or your attorney? That's 
a relief. Maybe you should give back the money you extorted from others.


If you do send any more extortion letters by registered mail or other 
means, I will publish them here this time, instead of ignoring them 
as Gene convinced me to do years ago. As I said, I don't respond well 
to intimidation, especially not the third time around.


Anyway, say what you like, but don't try your little tricks on me, in 
public or in private. And if you sincerely want your papers uploaded 
at LENR-CANR (as if!), you know the drill and you know why I insist 
on it. Everyone else now knows. You have to:


1. Upload your papers to your own damn web site.
2. Give me explicit, public permission to copy them.

If I see you have erased them from your site I will erase them from 
LENR-CANR faster than you can say knife, so don't try that cute 
little trick either. Anyway, it'll never happen. You will never 
publish anything on line, and now everyone knows why. Game over for 
you. You'll have to find some other way to intimidate people.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket



At 03:35 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell wrote:

Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:

I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why 
Mr. Rothwell wasn't able to "read/scan" what I presume were 
hardcopy documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior 
encounter. Presumably such "hardcopy" could have been scanned. . . .


Rothwell: "Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later 
I got electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter Hagelstein. 
I have printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and I could 
always scan them."



  Well at last, Rothwell finally admits he did receive those copies
from me. Seems his previous story, based on falsehoods, is eroding
little by little.

=


Rothwell: "However, this has nothing to do with our dispute."



  Ah yes.  The indelible dispute.

  The real dispute is that a number of years ago
I exposed Rothwell's scientific error
on flow measurements, along with several others on spf.
He was running an experiment claiming "kilowatts".  Some noted
that kilowatts of power dissipation produce a lot of damage
to the materials. Others noted he was measuring without a
pressure head, and I noted that he failed to account for
Bernard instability.  Basically, by failing to calibrate,
and by using a bad paradigm involving flow in a vertical path,
Rothwell got a phoney 1 kilowatt, a false positive,
henceforth "kilowatt". Now, when Dr. Patterson's cell
was used in a correct configuration it appears to have
gotten a very respectable 0.8 watts excess heat, which
is impressive if done for a long amount of time, and with
calibrations.

Note that the reason Jed does not like my papers is that
we demonstrated that Bernard instability was giving
over-estimations of excess heat
in vertically positioned flow calorimeters.

  I published a series of papers on how flow calorimetry was
susceptible to vertical flow in the flow calorimetry system,
and all hell broke loose by Jed.  Rothwell has periodically
decompensated (like now).
But phoney "calibrations" like Rothwell's need to be
examined, studied, and revealed.  The sooner the better.

 Furthermore, this is important because it is a large error,
and the error could be correctable.
Experimentally, the "kilowatts" would always disappear when
horizontal flow was used (which avoids the Bernard instability).

Analyzing the data, the false positive effect is correctable,
by simple consideration of the continuum electromechanics.

I wrote a paper on it (1), and without the correction,
fractions of a watt of excess power were shown where they could
appear as a "kilowatt" [which is what made Jed infamous on
spf at the time.(2)

NOTA BENE:
The problem is that false positive amplification hurt cold fusion for
more than decade because the "kilowatts" were not kilowatts,
and therefore excuses were made.

1. Swartz, M, "Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction", Journal of New Energy,
1, 3, 219-221 (1996)
2. Swartz, M, "Potential for Positional Variation in Flow
Calorimetric Systems", Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996)

  To this day, Rothwell gets an immunologic anaphylactic
reaction to these papers which is characterized by his
conveniently forgetting about this.

=

Rothwell: "You have to understand that Swartz uses this and other 
forums to ran an extortion and intimidation racket. He has been 
doing this for years. He tried to nail me twice, and he nailed some 
other people who contacted me. I don't know if this is a hobby or a 
business. You can see half of his scheme in the messages he posted 
here. It works like this:


I never did this.

Rothwell is frothing at the mouth again.  I have contributed to cold fusion
education through the COLD FUSION TIMES and have
lost money doing it for two decades.  We even hosted
a free seminar, the LANR Colloquium at MIT this year.

  Where was the extortion?  What the hell is Rothwell
talking about?

Rothwell is challenged to prove it, or admit he is a screwball,
afflicted with paranoia.

=

Rothwell: "1. He goads the mark, as he has done here with me. Or he 
makes nice."


  When I gave Rothwell a ride from Gene Mallove's funeral in NH to Boston
Newbury Street (and handed him a CD which he never admitted
until the above) he exited the car and did not even say "thank you".
Being nice to him has always been a waste of time, generated
out of goodness of heart, not because anything was wanted.

=

Rothwell: "Several researchers have denied permission to upload 
papers. Of course that is their right and I have no objection. Some 
are hostile toward LENR-CANR and have taken steps to stop others 
from contributing to it, or spread false rumors about it. Of course 
many skeptics despise it. The ones at Wikipedia made it impossible 
to add a li

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

2009-09-30 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:16:39 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>In some ways you have to draw an arbitrary line, for the convenience 
>of the reader. We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I 
>suppose they are cold fusion. This is not because I have anything 
>thing against Mills' work. It is because people come to LENR-CANR to 
>learn about metal-lattice based cold fusion -- the Fleischmann Pons 
>effect, or whatever you want to call it. 

I have suspected this bias for some time, and I suspect the influence is
primarily that of Dr. Storms. Personally, I think that restricting CF (general
term) to metal lattices may be too severe a restriction. Note that in at least
one of Dr. Oriani's papers he reports ionizing radiation emitted from the vapor
above a CF cell. 
I think any interest in the field is due to our common need to find a new source
of energy, so I think your belief that people only want to read about lattice
based CF is probably misguided.

I also think that while a lattice may well *frequently* provide the necessary
environment, it may not be a *necessary* requirement.


>It would annoy the readers 
>to find many papers about other subjects. If they want to learn about 
>Mills they will go to his site.
>
>- Jed
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: correction /Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current

2009-09-30 Thread mixent

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:52:54 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The complete circle/loop/circuit is this:
>
>'negative' to 'negative' (with a 'positive' in between).

The "'positive' in between" is what makes the equations work out. I think you
are having a problem because you expect the net EMF to integrate to zero (begin
point = end point), which it would do if you take the "step" into account. Note
that the EMF does not change monotonically around the complete loop. It does
along the wire (assuming a constant resistance/length ratio), however there is
at least one step when you hit the electrodes. (In the case of a battery perhaps
more accurately one step at each electrode).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Web hosting sites

2009-09-30 Thread Alexander Hollins

where you can run into large costs is if A. you have a business.  they
force you to upper levels for unlimited.  unlimited isnt quite
unlimited...
B.  PROCCESOR costs.  if you have something that uses a lot of
processor power, applications, things running off of mysql databases,
ect, you can look at having to have a personal server, with several
server racks running it, and that, you can be looking at a few hundred
to a a grand or so a month.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> John Berry wrote:
>
>> I have heard of websites paying huge data costs and I have never
>> understood it at all.
>>
>> While $33 a month isn't quite what I'm talking about a host such as say
>> GoDaddy charges...
>>
>> $4.99/mo for 300GB Transfer
>> $6.99/mo for 1,500GB Transfer
>> $14.99/mo for Unlimited Transfer (and unlimited space)
>
> When I switched last time, I read reviews of GoDaddy and other sites and
> they said the reliability and transfer speed is not as good as places such
> as JumpLine. JumpLine got top grades, although it was pricey. Their tech
> support has been good. You would be surprised how much goes wrong with these
> things.
>
> The present contract, for $33 a month, was settled a few years ago and when
> it runs out I will push them for a lower rate or higher bandwidth (whichever
> I need). Last spring when I ran short of bandwidth they doubled it for free.
> Just for the asking. So it was clear I was overpaying. It comes up for
> renewal soon. It looks like their latest package similar to this is $20 per
> month. The prices keep falling.
>
> This is actually for 3 sites, for my wife and daughter as well, with
> completely separate  hosting. Although the bandwidth limit is for all three.
> I think I can get 5 total.
>
> There are many ISP comparison sites.
>
> It would be a pain in the butt to change to a new ISP. I am hoping that a
> university will take over hosting so I don't have to worry about it. Or pay!
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Web hosting sites


John Berry wrote:

I have heard of websites paying huge data costs and I have never 
understood it at all.


While $33 a month isn't quite what I'm talking about a host such as 
say GoDaddy charges...


$4.99/mo for 300GB Transfer
$6.99/mo for 1,500GB Transfer
$14.99/mo for Unlimited Transfer (and unlimited space)


When I switched last time, I read reviews of GoDaddy and other sites 
and they said the reliability and transfer speed is not as good as 
places such as JumpLine. JumpLine got top grades, although it was 
pricey. Their tech support has been good. You would be surprised how 
much goes wrong with these things.


The present contract, for $33 a month, was settled a few years ago 
and when it runs out I will push them for a lower rate or higher 
bandwidth (whichever I need). Last spring when I ran short of 
bandwidth they doubled it for free. Just for the asking. So it was 
clear I was overpaying. It comes up for renewal soon. It looks like 
their latest package similar to this is $20 per month. The prices keep falling.


This is actually for 3 sites, for my wife and daughter as well, with 
completely separate  hosting. Although the bandwidth limit is for all 
three. I think I can get 5 total.


There are many ISP comparison sites.

It would be a pain in the butt to change to a new ISP. I am hoping 
that a university will take over hosting so I don't have to worry 
about it. Or pay!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

2009-09-30 Thread John Berry

I have heard of websites paying huge data costs and I have never understood
it at all.
While $33 a month isn't quite what I'm talking about a host such as say
GoDaddy charges...

$4.99/mo for 300GB Transfer
$6.99/mo for 1,500GB Transfer
$14.99/mo for Unlimited Transfer (and unlimited space)
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Chris Zell wrote:
>
>  Umm. where might these alternative sites be, that offer papers on
>> transmutation?  I think reading them might be an enriching experience.
>>
>
> That was a paper by Roberto Monti. He has attended several cold fusion
> conferences. He does Medieval lead-to-gold style transmutation. Gene Mallove
> dabbled in it.
>
> You can find his work on the Internet in various places by searching for
> his name.
>
> I think it is far enough removed from cold fusion that it should be
> considered off-topic. That's what I told him, and he agreed. I have no
> problem with him coming to conferences, and if he had a paper in an ICCF
> proceedings and asked me to upload it, I would. Of course I would include it
> if I upload the entire proceedings, as I hope to do with the next ICCF, and
> maybe ICCF14. Any paper the editors accept is fine with me.
>
> ICCF editors usually accept any and all papers.
>
> As Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, we now have some papers by Vysotskii. He published
> them in recent ICCF proceedings and then sent me an earlier one, so why not?
>
> Also as noted in my old message thoughtfully uploaded by Swartz, I used to
> limit the number of papers because bandwidth was expensive. I think the cost
> has fallen by about a factor of 10 or more since 2002. It used to cost me a
> lot of money to distribute these papers when we went over quota. The quota
> has been raised to 50 GB per month . . . but we are up to 36 GB (72%) this
> month! Some of these new large files such as the NSF/EPRI proceedings are
> eating up bandwidth.
>
> It now costs me $33 per month from Jumpline. That's probably a little high.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

2009-09-30 Thread John Berry

Stick them autonomously on usenet and no one will be able to remove them for
a year, plus no one can find who did it

Anyone with a usenet account can freely access it, actually the way
retention is growing in a year retention at many brokers may have grown to 2
years...

Of course no one has his lousy papers so...

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Steven V Johnson wrote:
>
>  For the record, and as best as I can tell, Dr. Swartz has never had
>> anything bad to say about anyone's mother.
>>
>
> Well, if he ever says anything bad about your mother, I advise you not to
> quote him, or you will soon be hearing from his attorney. I expect to be
> hearing from him any minute now. However, as I said, I am tired of this
> nonsense. People think I am crazy setting these weird conditions for Swartz
> alone, out of all those thousands of authors. Now you know why. I did
> promise Gene to keep a lid on this unseemly affair. But Gene is long dead,
> and I no longer feel obliged to cover up the dirty laundry in this field.
>
> The whole business is sickening. Cold fusion attracts a lot of low-lifes,
> unfortunately.
>
> If you have a printed proceedings you can easily confirm that Swartz's
> papers are not uploaded anywhere on the Internet. Just type in a few lines
> from the abstract for one. Don't ask me for the text!
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket


Steven V Johnson wrote:


For the record, and as best as I can tell, Dr. Swartz has never had
anything bad to say about anyone's mother.


Well, if he ever says anything bad about your mother, I advise you 
not to quote him, or you will soon be hearing from his attorney. I 
expect to be hearing from him any minute now. However, as I said, I 
am tired of this nonsense. People think I am crazy setting these 
weird conditions for Swartz alone, out of all those thousands of 
authors. Now you know why. I did promise Gene to keep a lid on this 
unseemly affair. But Gene is long dead, and I no longer feel obliged 
to cover up the dirty laundry in this field.


The whole business is sickening. Cold fusion attracts a lot of 
low-lifes, unfortunately.


If you have a printed proceedings you can easily confirm that 
Swartz's papers are not uploaded anywhere on the Internet. Just type 
in a few lines from the abstract for one. Don't ask me for the text!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

2009-09-30 Thread John Berry

Sheesh, I'd call him on his bluff!
I feel tempted to do it for sport.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For the record, and as best as I can tell, Dr. Swartz has never had
> anything bad to say about anyone's mother.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion


Chris Zell wrote:

Umm. where might these alternative sites be, that offer papers 
on transmutation?  I think reading them might be an enriching experience.


That was a paper by Roberto Monti. He has attended several cold 
fusion conferences. He does Medieval lead-to-gold style 
transmutation. Gene Mallove dabbled in it.


You can find his work on the Internet in various places by searching 
for his name.


I think it is far enough removed from cold fusion that it should be 
considered off-topic. That's what I told him, and he agreed. I have 
no problem with him coming to conferences, and if he had a paper in 
an ICCF proceedings and asked me to upload it, I would. Of course I 
would include it if I upload the entire proceedings, as I hope to do 
with the next ICCF, and maybe ICCF14. Any paper the editors accept is 
fine with me.


ICCF editors usually accept any and all papers.

As Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, we now have some papers by Vysotskii. He 
published them in recent ICCF proceedings and then sent me an earlier 
one, so why not?


Also as noted in my old message thoughtfully uploaded by Swartz, I 
used to limit the number of papers because bandwidth was expensive. I 
think the cost has fallen by about a factor of 10 or more since 2002. 
It used to cost me a lot of money to distribute these papers when we 
went over quota. The quota has been raised to 50 GB per month . . . 
but we are up to 36 GB (72%) this month! Some of these new large 
files such as the NSF/EPRI proceedings are eating up bandwidth.


It now costs me $33 per month from Jumpline. That's probably a little high.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

2009-09-30 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

For the record, and as best as I can tell, Dr. Swartz has never had
anything bad to say about anyone's mother.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket


Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as:

I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why 
Mr. Rothwell wasn't able to "read/scan" what I presume were hardcopy 
documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior encounter. 
Presumably such "hardcopy" could have been scanned. . . .


Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later I got 
electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter Hagelstein. I have 
printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and I could always scan them.


However, this has nothing to do with our dispute. You have to 
understand that Swartz uses this and other forums to ran an extortion 
and intimidation racket. He has been doing this for years. He tried 
to nail me twice, and he nailed some other people who contacted me. I 
don't know if this is a hobby or a business. You can see half of his 
scheme in the messages he posted here. It works like this:


1. He goads the mark, as he has done here with me. Or he makes nice. 
("Mark" means the victim; the target.) The goal is to get the mark 
post some text from one of Swartz's papers, the way I posted his 
Abstract here. Or to upload the entire paper to a web site, or to 
print it. When he runs the "make nice" version he may hint it is okay 
to quote him but he never gives explicit permission.


2. As soon as the text is posted or published he send e-mails and 
snail-mail letters to the mark threatening a lawsuit for copyright 
violations and for "stealing ideas" or what have you.


3. The mark apologizes and settles out of court. Either he pays up or 
he agrees never to say anything bad about Swartz again.


He did this to me twice. The first time I thought it was a joke. The 
second time I wised up. I erased all electronic messages and 
manuscripts from him, and threw away all printed matter. There is not 
one file or scrap of paper in my office from him. I am thinking of 
deleting all of his papers from the LENR-CANR index, just to be safe.


Mallove and others urged me to keep quiet about it, which I would do, 
but from his recent messages I sense he is still out there running 
his little game, probably looking for new marks. So I suggest you 
beware of quoting any of his papers or uploading them. I wouldn't 
even discuss his work. You are asking for trouble. I am surely asking 
for trouble revealing this, but I do not respond well to intimidation.


I would upload his papers in the conditions I set, because as you see 
they preclude a lawsuit. Hundreds of people would see that he gave me 
permission! Obviously there is no chance he will upload his own work 
to his own website, or allow anyone to copy it, because that would 
wreck his scheme.


Several researchers have denied permission to upload papers. Of 
course that is their right and I have no objection. Some are hostile 
toward LENR-CANR and have taken steps to stop others from 
contributing to it, or spread false rumors about it. Of course many 
skeptics despise it. The ones at Wikipedia made it impossible to add 
a link to LENR-CANR anywhere in the English Wikipedia, and one of 
them (an American who reads no Japanese) tried to do the same thing 
in the Japanese edition. So I have many enemies who cause mischief. 
But Swartz is the only one who has tried to use LENR-CANR to extort 
money from me!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done correctly?

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Hmmm ... this sounds like a case of attempted record skipping... 
>
> Like Bill-Phil sez: "Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one
> today."
>
> Ah ... now I know why you say hello when I say goodbye.

Just don't hook the output to the input.

Phil! Phil Conners!  Is that you!?

Shadow Valley Condoms. . .If you live here you'd be home now.

RE: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done correctly?

2009-09-30 Thread Jones Beene

Hmmm ... this sounds like a case of attempted record skipping... 

Like Bill-Phil sez: "Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one
today."

Ah ... now I know why you say hello when I say goodbye.



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

Looks like Cramer got his $$ to finish his retrocausality experiment:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/john-cramers-retrocausal-experiments.html

Terry


>> DJ: Please bring this century old debate to completion?
>
> It will be completed when completed, David.
>
> I hope that everyone interested in this can take a moment to look at the
> "The Alternate View" column of John G. Cramer  article in Analog
>
> http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw149.html
>
> It covers a lot of ground, focusing on the work of Prof. Raymond Chiao and
> his group at the University of California at Merced.
>
> Ciao
>
> "I don't know why you say hello, I say goodbye"
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done correctly?

Looks like Cramer got his $$ to finish his retrocausality experiment:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/john-cramers-retrocausal-experiments.html

Terry

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Mauro Lacy
>
>
>> DJ: Please bring this century old debate to completion?
>
> It will be completed when completed, David.
>
> I hope that everyone interested in this can take a moment to look at the
> "The Alternate View" column of John G. Cramer  article in Analog
>
> http://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw149.html
>
> It covers a lot of ground, focusing on the work of Prof. Raymond Chiao and
> his group at the University of California at Merced.
>
> Ciao
>
> "I don't know why you say hello, I say goodbye"
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

2009-09-30 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

As best as I can tell the on-going dispute between Mr. Rothwell and
Dr. Swartz appears to revolve around Dr. Swartz desire to prove that
Jed "censors" experimental data from CF researchers, himself included.
Meanwhile, from Jed's perspective, it would appear that Dr. Swartz
refuses to follow a few simple steps that would let him publish Dr.
Swartz's experimental data out the lenr-canr web site.

Said differently: Mr. Rothwell and Dr. Swartz do not appear to get
along with each other. I don't know why there is this on-going
animosity between these two individuals. I suspect additional
reason(s) that remain obscured from our view, and that are none of our
concern, certainly none of mine.

All I know is what Dr. Swartz has previously stated:
> You [Mr. Rothwell] were given copies.  Multiple copies.
> By disk. On paper. By mail with green card.

For which Mr. Rothwell has replied:
> I couldn't read them.

Mr. Rothwell then went on to suggest that in order to get Dr. Swartz's
data posted out at the lenr-canr web stite:
> 1. You [Dr. Swartz] first upload these papers to your web site.
> 2. You give me permission, here, publicly, to copy them.
> 3. I will then upload them. I will do it within the hour.


I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why Mr.
Rothwell wasn't able to "read/scan" what I presume were hardcopy
documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior encounter.
Presumably such "hardcopy" could have been scanned. Were such
"hardcopy" documents so unreadable that they couldn't be easily
scanned - documents presumably assembled from a professional
researcher, like Dr. Swartz? OTOH, I also don't understand why Dr.
Swartz has been unwilling to follow Mr. Rothwell's three simple
requests that would allow him to publish Dr. Swartz's data out at the
lenr-canr web site.

What seems to be extremely odd from my perspective is the apparent
statement by Mr. Rothwell that the experimental data Dr. Swartz
compiled (the data for which allegedly had previously been given to
Mr. Rothwell in various formats) does not appear to be posted out at
Dr. Swartz's own web site. If this is an accurate statement, it makes
no sense to me. Why would Dr. Swarts complain about his papers not
being published out at lenr-canr when they aren't even available at
his own web site. Is this an accurate statement I've made? Please
correct me if I'm wrong! It would tend to leave an observer (like me)
with the following conclusions: That (1) Dr. Swartz's experimental
data does not (or may no longer) exist, in a format that would lend
itself to be easily reproduced at any web site, or (2) Dr. Swartz is
far more interested in proving to the world that Mr. Rothwell censors
experimental CF data of other researchers, rather than getting his own
CF experimental data posted out at the lenr-canr web site.

I freely admit that both of my conclusions could be inaccurate, or
flat out wrong. But at present that's the best that I (as a third
party observer) can conclude. From a voyeuristic POV these
transactional spats are fascinating to witness - the source of
speculation as to what this is really all about. However, from a
professional POV they seem to reveal a unique (and volatile)
collection of personal politics that feed off of the seemingly
boundless energy of each other's outrage. Unfortunately, if either of
my previously stated conjectures are reasonably accurate it would seem
to indicate that both will never be able to resolve the continuing
saga we bear witness to, because both have different objectives they
wish to accomplish, objectives that unfortunately have no interest in
cooperating with each other's goals since at their cores they are at
the other's expense.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

2009-09-30 Thread Chris Zell

Umm. where might these alternative sites be, that offer papers on 
transmutation?  I think reading them might be an enriching experience.

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion


Dr. Mitchell Swartz quoted me:


"At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims
related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or
biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional
theories.


That is right. As I said, I recall we turned down 4 or 5 papers. One 
was about macroscopic amounts of gold, and one may have been 
biological. I helped the authors find web sites that specialize in 
these topics, and they amicably agreed that these sites were more 
suited to their work.


There are some references to the biological work at LENR-CANR, 
including some in papers by Storms himself, so obviously he and I are 
not excluding all references to this research.


In some ways you have to draw an arbitrary line, for the convenience 
of the reader. We have nothing about Mills claims, even though I 
suppose they are cold fusion. This is not because I have anything 
thing against Mills' work. It is because people come to LENR-CANR to 
learn about metal-lattice based cold fusion -- the Fleischmann Pons 
effect, or whatever you want to call it. It would annoy the readers 
to find many papers about other subjects. If they want to learn about 
Mills they will go to his site.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion


At 04:39 AM 9/30/2009, Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Rothwell (admitting he edits papers): "Swartz's assertions are 
crazy nonsense. I would never demand to edit papers..

(but then in the next paragraph)
When I am preparing papers for a proceedings, that's another matter. "


Embarrassing. Dr. Swartz is playing "gotcha," and rather badly here. 
"Preparing papers for a proceedings" is entirely different from 
editing papers uploaded to lenr-canr.org without author permission, 
which itself is different from mere reformatting. The context would 
be editing papers that were provided, so what Swartz has done is to 
juxtapose the two different situations to make it look like a comment 
about one is about the other. Perhaps he believes this, and is merely 
inattentive.


Rothwell (admitting he censors papers): "Ed and I have on rare 
occasions turned down papers altogether. Maybe 3 to 5 times. These 
papers were off-topic, crazy, utterly incomprehensible, or 
handwritten and illegible. Generally speaking though, if you can 
get a paper published in a proceedings or journal anywhere, and it 
has some connection to cold fusion, we'll take it. We never turn 
down papers because we disagree with them. On the contrary, for 
years I have been trying to get more of the skeptics to contribute papers.

- Jed"


Refusing to place a document in a library is a librarian's judgment 
and is not exactly censorship. And the topic wasn't papers on, say, 
biological transformation, but rather specific papers specifically 
about cold fusion, by a notable proponent, Swartz. And not the kind 
of allegedly wild-eyed speculation or dangerously and obviously 
idiosyncratic papers that Rothwell is talking about. Again, it's a gotcha.



  What is nonsense is that Jed Rothwell is disingenuous.
Merely the postings on vortex corroborate the assertions.


Rothwell is about as straight-out as they come, for better or for 
worse. He's not exactly "politic," himself. The truth is that 
communication is ambiguous, and a general truth still stands even 
when there are unstated exceptions. It merely needs qualification, 
but tendentious argument will attack a general truth based on the 
existence of exceptions.



  Jed previously explained why he censors at his site.
At 10:45 AM 8/23/2004, Jed Rothwell admitted to censoring, but then 
purported it is for

"political reasons", such as not to upset some of his "critics" (ROTFLOL)
 so he will not get hit with by "a baseball bat (given) to Robert Park".

 Rothwell:   "I will not hand a baseball bat to Robert Park and ask him
 to please hit me over the head with it! It is a shame that CF is 
so political,

but it is, and we must pay attention to politics, image and public relations."


That's right. Now, we might disagree with some of Rothwell's 
decisions, but the principle is sound. The library isn't a completely 
indiscriminate collection of resources; if it were, it would be less 
useful. However, there is a problem, for sure, where material is 
excluded merely because of its political implications, and I 
immediately think of Vyosotskii. I've seen the political implications 
from this, playing out, for the discussion of Vyosotskii in discussed 
in Storms (2007) is used against Storms by some of the critics. And 
then that Vyosotskii once wrote a paper on "water memory," is used 
against Vyosotskii.


Rothwell could set up an advisory board to which he would refer any 
disputes over inclusion. Or he could continue has he has, making the 
decisions himself. He's putting in the work, he has the right. If 
someone else wants to create a "library of rejected submissions to 
lenr-canr.org," they could, and my guess is that Rothwell would link 
to it... Basically, he's stated his motive, and it is not censorship. 
It's protective of the reputation of lenr-canr.org, which is 
considerable, and in which there is a great deal invested.



What is also interesting is the following from the late
Dr. Eugene Mallove (discussed on vortex previously) with regards to the
website (Jed's) in question and what Jed and Gene called
"political censorship".

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004
Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship
From: "Eugene F. Mallove" 
To: Mitchell Swartz 
"Mitch,
FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about  a month ago:
"At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims
related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or
biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional
theories. This is not because we (Storms and Rothwell) oppose these claims,
or because we are upset by them. It is for political reasons only. The goal
of LENR-CANR is to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. This
goal would be hampered by presenting such extreme views. Actually, I have
no opinion about most theories, and I could not care less how weird the
data may seem. At the Scientific American and the APS they feel hostility
toward such things.

Re: [Vo]:Strange Object Near Shuttle Tank

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:06 PM,   wrote:

> Note that the tank appears to be catching up with the camera in the horizontal
> plane. That means that the camera itself has to rotate to follow it and the
> rotation of the object appears to be proportional to the degree of rotation of
> the camera. Perhaps it's a view port reflection, or the image is captured in 
> the
> camera via a rotating mirror, and the "frost" is on the mirror?

I'm not yet convinced.  Frosty the Stickman appears to rotate on more
than one axis.

Terry

RE: [Vo]:Strange Object Near Shuttle Tank

2009-09-30 Thread Jack O Suileabhain


The object is curiously aerodynamic for a random bit of frost etc.  It has 
similar lines to one of Burt Rutan's space-planes especially well designed for 
smooth atmospheric re-entry. re: Scaled Composites Inc.-Mojave, Calif.
 
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Strange Object Near Shuttle Tank
> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:06:11 +1000
> 
> In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:39:29 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:05 PM,  wrote:
> >> Perhaps that what it is, but on a view port or the camera lens? (It tracks 
> >> the
> >> tank because the camera is tracking the tank).
> >
> >It rotates independently of the tank.
> 
> Note that the tank appears to be catching up with the camera in the horizontal
> plane. That means that the camera itself has to rotate to follow it and the
> rotation of the object appears to be proportional to the degree of rotation of
> the camera. Perhaps it's a view port reflection, or the image is captured in 
> the
> camera via a rotating mirror, and the "frost" is on the mirror?
> 
> >
> >Terry
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
> 
  
_
More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion