Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Joshua,

OK, I see our modes of thinking are not compatible. I cannot conceive such
experiments without  measurements, I think the large container is a bad idea
and anti-technical, and I believe far analogies are not good in real problem
solving.
But otherwise I have to thank you for inspiring me-and I hope that we will
have opportunities to discuss other Ni-H LENR experiments.

Peter

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> >Joshua,
>
>
> >based on our constructive discussions re
>
> testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment
> to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way-
> even not "I ma not interested more" Because I think such experiments are
> important- here it is again.
>
>
> I gave a pretty detailed description of the sort of think I think would be
> persuasive -- equivalent to the Wright brothers' 1908 demonstration.
>
>
> The problems I have with your protocol have already been mentioned:
>
>
> 1 - it requires quantitative measurements of flow rate and temperature and
> therefore trust in whoever makes them. If that's to be the case, then some
> method of choosing the observers needs to be in the protocol. And that could
> be difficult for reasons Lomax gave: serious skeptics would be unwilling to
> waste time or risk disapproval in getting involved in something that may
> turn out to be an obvious scam.
>
>
> I think it's much better to heat a large container of water with no inlets
> or outlets; 1000L seems like a reasonable amount. Hot tubs can be purchased
> pretty cheaply.
>
>
> 2 - I think the impact would be far more dramatic without any input,
> regardless of how carefully it's measured. As I've said, this not only makes
> the effect more obvious, but in practice, a device that needs input is just
> a slightly improved heat pump. Not revolutionary at all.
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

>Joshua,


>based on our constructive discussions re

testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment
to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way-
even not "I ma not interested more" Because I think such experiments are
important- here it is again.


I gave a pretty detailed description of the sort of think I think would be
persuasive -- equivalent to the Wright brothers' 1908 demonstration.


The problems I have with your protocol have already been mentioned:


1 - it requires quantitative measurements of flow rate and temperature and
therefore trust in whoever makes them. If that's to be the case, then some
method of choosing the observers needs to be in the protocol. And that could
be difficult for reasons Lomax gave: serious skeptics would be unwilling to
waste time or risk disapproval in getting involved in something that may
turn out to be an obvious scam.


I think it's much better to heat a large container of water with no inlets
or outlets; 1000L seems like a reasonable amount. Hot tubs can be purchased
pretty cheaply.


2 - I think the impact would be far more dramatic without any input,
regardless of how carefully it's measured. As I've said, this not only makes
the effect more obvious, but in practice, a device that needs input is just
a slightly improved heat pump. Not revolutionary at all.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Peter Gluck]

Joshua,

based on our constructive discussions re
testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment
to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way-
even not "I ma not interested more" Because I think such experiments are
important- here it is again.


THE PROTOCOL- please discuss!



A. There will be performed at least 3 separate experiments, if possible
quasi identical
(*my idea based on the first principle of the Pilot Plant Engineer: 1 result
= NO result, 1 measurement = NO measurement. 1 test = NO test)*
*
*
*
*
*B. The  preferred experiment is cooling water in, warm water out- simple
elementary heat measurement. (a.k.a.*
*calorimetry)*
*If steam generation will be used then the enethalpy of the steam will be
measured using the hyper-simple method described here: *
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html

C. The minimum duration of an experiment will be 72 hours,
or alternatively  (to eliminate the supra-realist doubt the the generator
itself is consumed e. g. by burning, 14 kWhs have
to be generated for each Kg. of the cell.

D. The hydrogen bottle should be disconnected from the E-cat after start-up
and carried away.

E- In case that it is not possible to work with the generator
in the self sustaining mode- zero input for hours- due to control problems
etc.- the input energy must be measured with
the greatest care and precision (details?)

Joshua, it is your turn!


---

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large
> crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed
> affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles
> in 39 minutes. Yet no one outside of Dayton believed a word of it.
>
>
> > Not one newspaper or journal.
>
>
> Well, there must have been at least 2, because Science uses the plural in
> this report from 1904:
>
>
> "The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that Wilbur
> Wright had flown a distance of 3 miles with an aeroplane propeled by a
> 16-horse power, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, the whole weighing more than
> 700 pounds…."
>
>
> It's not the 24 mile flight, which presumably came later. Science went on
> to praise this accomplishment without skepticism:
>
>
> "But to the student of aeronautics, and particularly to those who had
> followed the careful scientific experiments with aeroplanes which were being
> made by Orville and Wilbur Wright, it meant an epoch in the progress of
> invention and achievement, perhaps as great as that when Stevenson first
> drove a locomotive along a railroad."
>
>
> They proceed to admit wide skepticism because of many failures, but then
> say (remember, in 1904):
>
>
> "Mr. Wright's success in rising and landing safely with a motor-driven
> aeroplane is a crowning achievement showing the possibility of human
> flight."
>
>
> Anything like that ever appear in Science about cold fusion?
>
>
> > The Scientific American attacked, ridiculed and belittled the Wrights,
> and continued to attack them at every opportunity, most recently in 2003.
> See:
>
>
> The Wrights avoided publicity and limited photography for fear of having
> their secrets stolen, until they had a firm offer of purchase. This resulted
> in skepticism about the Wright's claims, no doubt, but not about flying.
> There were certainly many skeptical scientists, most notably Lord Kelvin,
> but the general opinion of the scientific community was (and had been for
> some time) that heavier than air flight was inevitable. Two years before
> their infamous skeptical article, even Scientific American wrote of a much
> more modest demonstration of flight by the Wright brothers: "This is a
> decided step in advance in aerial navigation with aeroplanes". So they were
> not rejecting the idea, but merely accusing the Wrights of exaggeration. And
> if you believe their spin, they had good reason. Even your sentence admits
> it was (erroneous) skepticism of the Wrights, but not of the science in
> general; in 2003, I don't think SciAm denied that flight is possible.
>
>
> > People have not grown wiser since 1908.
>
>
> What is the lesson of 1908? That any conceivable phenomenon must be right
> if people are skeptical of it?
>
>
> > The arguments used against the Wrights were almost word-for-word the same
> as the ones you trot out against the cold fusion today.
>
>
> It is only your fantasy that the situation surrounding the development of
> aviation is similar to that of cold fusion. Some criticism of the Wrights
> may have been similar to some criticism of cold fusion, but note the lack of
> a parallel there. The Wrights are one team, cold fusion is a field.
>
>
> Moreover, the criticism or skepticism of the Wrights lasted a few years.
> The Wrights you see made progress. When they finally sho

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
 wrote:


Rothwell>>> The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death,
and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all
cells do this.


Cude>> It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency.


Lomax> So? The implication is that consistency of results is a requirement
for an effect to be considered real. That's not a scientific proposition.


Consistency here is not the same as reproducibility. The theory that heat is
produced by deuterium fusion is contradicted  if there is no deuterium
present. That's a blatant inconsistency. There are degrees. I was saying
that the idea that the heat is produced by deuterium reactions in Pd appears
inconsistent with the fact that the heat disappears so quickly. Perhaps not
a direct contradiction, just something that appears inconsistent with the
proposed theory.


Discussion like this -- identification of inconsistencies -- is in fact an
integral part of any scientific discourse, contrary to what you say.


It was not the only thing my skepticism depends on. My central point, if you
paid attention, is that there is no progress in the field and there is no
obvious demo, when if the claims were real, it should be easy to set one up.
You and Rothwell are using experimental results from the early 90s to argue
for the reality of CF. What better illustration of the lack of progress than
that?



>> "One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the
heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse
out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline.
Especially with all the reports of heat after death. That points to artifact
to me."


> heat after death occurs with some techniques. I do see, by the way, some
HAD in that experiment. Just not a lot. Look at how the heat falls, it
"bounces."


Bounces? Do you think the deuterium diffuses out and then back in? That
looks *inconsistent* to me. But no matter. The bounce is entirely within the
error bars for the control.


> The effect, first of all, is not much seen under equilibrium conditions.


If deuterium in palladium produces an effect, then the deuterium has to get
out of the Pd for the effect to stop, equilibrium or not.


> When the current is rapidly shut down, the deuterium will immediately
begin to migrate out,


Begin, yes. But the rate is limited by ordinary laws of diffusion.


> What you are doing is seeing a mystery, and concluding "artifact."


Sort of, yes. Mysteries, inconsistencies, inexplicables all make a theory
harder to swallow. When the evidence is not obvious, as in flight, and
theory makes a result implausible, then mysteries suggest artifacts.


> But what artifact? That's the question, isn't it?


Right. But not a very interesting one, for those who feel the evidence is
uncommonly weak for nuclear reactions. Finding artifacts is hard, and
finding other people's artifacts is hard and boring, especially if no one
believes the claims anyway.


>> So, given that some cells show heat after death, meaning the deuterium
does not diffuse out of the Pd right away,


> No, there is an assumption here. Suppose that the effect appears at, say,
90%, and that the SRI cells are *just above that, a smidgen." So you turn
off the electrolytic pressure, and the effect immediately disappears, as the
loading goes quickly below the required level. Suppose that in another
experiment, the necessary loading is the same, but the cell reaches 92%.
Turn off the juice, the loading starts to go down, but it takes time to pass
the turn-off threshold.


This idea of a steep threshold is not consistent (there it is again) with
the way the heat ramps up as the current is increased. There are clearly
intermediate levels of heat, resulting presumably from intermediate levels
of loading. If the threshold were so steep, you might expect a step increase
as the current is increased. That's not observed.


>> how could it be that in this particularly good experiment, the deuterium
could diffuse out seemingly in a matter of seconds.


> That chart has a scale of hours, the horizontal scaling is 24 hours per
division. "Seconds?" Joshua made that up.


Not made up; guessed wrong. The graph you linked to wasn't labelled. You
have to go back to the original to get the scale; I thought the axis was
labelled in minutes, and it's actually hours.


That weakens the objection, but it doesn't remove it. The complete drop
takes about an hour, but it's very steep in the middle, dropping by half the
amount in about 12 minutes. That still seems like an unreasonable rate for
diffusion, when you consider that a tiny foil in Dardik's experiment
maintains its output heat for 4 days.


We're told that a very special condition is required in Pd for CF, but now
it turns out there are 2 very different special conditions required, one in
which the deuterium doesn't diffuse below a critical level in 4

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large
crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed
affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles
in 39 minutes. Yet no one outside of Dayton believed a word of it.


> Not one newspaper or journal.


Well, there must have been at least 2, because Science uses the plural in
this report from 1904:


"The newspapers of December 18 contained the announcement that Wilbur Wright
had flown a distance of 3 miles with an aeroplane propeled by a 16-horse
power, four-cylinder, gasoline motor, the whole weighing more than 700
pounds…."


It's not the 24 mile flight, which presumably came later. Science went on to
praise this accomplishment without skepticism:


"But to the student of aeronautics, and particularly to those who had
followed the careful scientific experiments with aeroplanes which were being
made by Orville and Wilbur Wright, it meant an epoch in the progress of
invention and achievement, perhaps as great as that when Stevenson first
drove a locomotive along a railroad."


They proceed to admit wide skepticism because of many failures, but then say
(remember, in 1904):


"Mr. Wright's success in rising and landing safely with a motor-driven
aeroplane is a crowning achievement showing the possibility of human
flight."


Anything like that ever appear in Science about cold fusion?


> The Scientific American attacked, ridiculed and belittled the Wrights, and
continued to attack them at every opportunity, most recently in 2003. See:


The Wrights avoided publicity and limited photography for fear of having
their secrets stolen, until they had a firm offer of purchase. This resulted
in skepticism about the Wright's claims, no doubt, but not about flying.
There were certainly many skeptical scientists, most notably Lord Kelvin,
but the general opinion of the scientific community was (and had been for
some time) that heavier than air flight was inevitable. Two years before
their infamous skeptical article, even Scientific American wrote of a much
more modest demonstration of flight by the Wright brothers: "This is a
decided step in advance in aerial navigation with aeroplanes". So they were
not rejecting the idea, but merely accusing the Wrights of exaggeration. And
if you believe their spin, they had good reason. Even your sentence admits
it was (erroneous) skepticism of the Wrights, but not of the science in
general; in 2003, I don't think SciAm denied that flight is possible.


> People have not grown wiser since 1908.


What is the lesson of 1908? That any conceivable phenomenon must be right if
people are skeptical of it?


> The arguments used against the Wrights were almost word-for-word the same
as the ones you trot out against the cold fusion today.


It is only your fantasy that the situation surrounding the development of
aviation is similar to that of cold fusion. Some criticism of the Wrights
may have been similar to some criticism of cold fusion, but note the lack of
a parallel there. The Wrights are one team, cold fusion is a field.


Moreover, the criticism or skepticism of the Wrights lasted a few years. The
Wrights you see made progress. When they finally showed the simple and
obvious demo, a few years later, they were catapulted onto the world stage.
To counter the skepticism, the Wrights did not present charts and graphs, or
refer to 16-year old papers, they showed the world how far they could jump.


And both Science and Nature have multiple articles on aviation dating back
to well before 1900. For example, in 1895, Nature wrote of a recent
conference: "many of the problems of aeronautics and aviation are being
treated scientifically". The 1896 issue contains letters from Langley and
Bell about experiments in mechanical flight, with considerable optimism for
the field. In 1902, Nature wrote in praise of Langley and his heavy machines
that had "arisen and descended in safety", and quoting him that "the time is
now very near when human beings will be transported at high velocities [in
such machines]", In 1908 they wrote: "We had heard reports of the Wright
Brothers' achievements in America in 1904 and 1905, but owing to the
inventors' efforts to avoid publicity, the feat of Santos and Dumont on
November 12, 1906 […] has been regarded by many people as the first …
artificially propelled man-carrying machine…". So even if it took until 1908
to acknowledge the Wrights, they clearly accepted the possibility of flight
before that.


I quoted from Science above in one of many articles on the subject, none
particularly dismissive of the field as it is of cold fusion. Even
Scientific American, in October 1903, had two articles on aviation.


So, the most prestigious journals of the time had, since before the Wrights,
considered aviation as a credible area of investigation and seemed
optimistic about its future. There is no res

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:36 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

>> The agenda is not selected by me. With a regrettable
>> exception or two (one in a rather orthogonal thread on
>> perpendicular fields), I have only *responded* to threads
>> with my name on them, in which my posts from elsewhere were
>> brought here for dissection.
>
> Clear as mud.

He only responded to topics crossposted by Lomax except for the thread
on perpendicular electric and magnetic fields.  Personally, I think
Lomax and Cude should take their romance off this list.  I will speak
to the list owner on this since Cude only came back because of a list
violation on crossposting and they are cluttering the real topics for
which the list is intended.

Mud, yes.  Wallowing, IMO.

T

RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Joshua:

>From Steven V Johnson - OrionWorks

>> "As a matter of principal, hiding behind a pseudo name
>> is not regarded in high esteem within this group list,
>> particularly when the poster posts copious quantities 
>> of lengthy exposes that show a highly selective agenda:"

>From Joshua:

> The agenda is not selected by me. With a regrettable 
> exception or two (one in a rather orthogonal thread on
> perpendicular fields), I have only *responded* to threads
> with my name on them, in which my posts from elsewhere were
> brought here for dissection.

Clear as mud.

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

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Rich Murray]

Say, Abd, Jed, and Joshua, I'd like to offer a path beyond the
lengthly "'Tis"--"Taint" debate -- members of Vortex-L could plan and
carry out a simple, repeatable, low-cost LENR demonstration, including
standard kits (for which, except for deserving young students, could
be priced at $ 1,000, since at least the designated main organizer
(never me, possibly Abd) deserves reasonable income for pivotal
service) -- replicating the "water tree" fractal filament corrosion of
dense highly-cross-linked polyethylene, reported since 2005 to result
in anomalous isotopic ratios, such as 6% shift for Zn:

1. based on ongoing research for decades about a pesky electrical
engineering mystery.

2. low cost, safe 0.5 mm pieces of a highly pure solid firm -- what
area and density, impurities, melting point?

3. touted as explainable via Widom-Larsen theory -- is NASA already on it?

4. unlike gas or liquid experiments, the solid state preserves its
shape, so reaction sites can be examined in situ real-time, or the
film sliced or processed to determine all elements, structures, and
isotopes in 3D -- what are sizes and shapes of water trees?

5. thin films are easy to observe continuously from both sides.

6. the setup is slow to change.

7. the setup is cheap and small, easy to precisely replicate and run
arrays of cells at once.

8. very little power input, as a 3 KV AC voltage across a dielectric
film is run for days and weeks -- what leakage current power and
dielectric heating levels? -- which can be precisely monitored
continuously with high time resolution (Michael H. Barron, Santa Fe,
has a voltage supply that goes up to 1,000 V with picoamp current
accuracy).

9. voltage plates can be transparent very thin conducing films,
allowing adjacent layers of detector film to record charged and
neutral particle emissions, or camera imagery of THz to gamma EM
radiation -- micro microphone arrays could locate phonon sources and
spectra.

10. setup can be laid on top of a 16 Mpx CCD imaging chip for precise
recording of events, and stacked multiple chips would allow real-time
tracking of 3D trajectories of energetic emissions.

11. Jed could soon translate the Japanese reports.

12. the research could be completely transparent on-line at all
phases, including archived comments from anyone, demonstrating a
quantum mutation in the process of science -- possibly far cheaper,
faster, more creative and efficient, more open to simultaneous
multiple points of view, including "skeptics".

13. the self-organizing network could set up public protocols re
possible profitable products.

14. no hazards -- just how much mass of the anomalous isotopes are
appearing at what time scale and power density?

15 easy to apply external electric, magnetic, and EM fields in any
combination  and geometry.

16. NMR can also noninvasively monitor time and space information
about isotopic changes.

17. goal is not mysterious, fickle heat bursts, but precise study of
replicable isotopes and emissions.

18. setup can reach nano level size.

19. elastic film could trap emerging gases, creating bubbles that can
be studied and extracted.

20. low temperature regimes could be explored by using various
liquids, including H and He.


reactive gas micro and nano bubbles complicate Widom-Larsen theory re
electrolytic cells -- metal isotope anomalies in 'water tree'
corrosion of power cable polyethylene insulation, T Kumazawa et al
2005 -- 2008 Japan: Rich Murray 2011.06.02
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.htm
Thursday, June 2, 2011
[at end of each long page, click on Older Posts]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/85
[you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]


Last year I sent some long posts to Abd Lomax and Ed Storms about
recent mainstream research on micro and nano bubbles in electrolytes,
which are common on all size scales, and can be H2, O2, N2, Cl2...

I, and Ludvik Kowalsky, also posted that in the SPAWAR DPd
codeposition runs, when an external DC 6 KV electric field was across
the 2 cm wide square by 8 cm high cell with thin clear plastic walls,
ordinary electrostatics will cause the entire charge to be across the
two thin walls, and zero within the electrolyte -- however microamps
of leakage current through the walls will result in complex low
voltage currents within the electrolyte, its components, and all
surfaces.

Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid
in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by
SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also hot spots from H and O
microbubbles: Rich Murray 2010.02.22
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.htm
Monday, February 22, 2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/42

Widom and Larsen have cited deterioration of plastic insulation on
underground power cables, fractal "water trees", eventually shorting
out the cable with conducting tree-like filaments, so it is reasonable
to suspect similar pro

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:27 AM 6/3/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:


> The data clearly shows that some cells 
produce heat after death, and other do not. 
What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this.


It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency.


So? The implication is that consistency of 
results is a requirement for an effect to be 
considered real. That's not a scientific proposition.


This can point us to the nature of the 
controversy here, it is about the difference 
between physics, which views itself as a hard 
science, and "softer" sciences, where absolute 
and accurate predictability are often lacking. 
Yet unpredictability can be found within physics 
as well; in particular, any chaotic phenomenon may be unpredictable.


In this case, though, the unpredictability of 
cold fusion results, with FPHE-type experiments, 
is probably due to the extreme difficult of 
controlling all the exact conditions. SRI P13/P14 
shows that there is a clearly distinguishable 
phenomenon, anomalous heat, standing well above 
the noise (about ten times the error bars, it's 
very clear), with unknown conditions causing it, 
since in the three runs, with all known specific 
conditions, except for specific history, being 
identical. (If this experiment was re-run, with 
the *same history*, would it show the same 
results? Probably not, because it would not, 
then, be *the same cathode.* The cathode is 
altered by the history, that's part of the problem.)


"Inconsistency" of results is a known 
characteristic of the FPHE. So no single 
experiment establishes the conditions that set it 
up. You might, sometimes, get spectacular 
results, then you try what seems to be the same 
thing, and nothing unusual happens. *This 
condition is not contradictory to the reality of 
the effect, it merely shows lack of control of 
conditions, and the chemistry of the surface of a 
palladium cathode is more complex than I care to describe.*


Physicists intensely dislike messy conditions, 
they design experiments to avoid them. But the 
FPHE, as initially known, arises in very messy 
conditions, simplifying the conditions did cause 
the effect to disappear. Later work found other 
conditions that also produce a heat effect with 
palladium deuteride, with, apparently, more 
reliable reproducibility. My own opinion is that 
these other conditions show the same phenomenon, 
but what's happened is that the experiment has 
been broken down, in effect, into a very large 
number of very tiny experiments run at the same 
time. Nanoparticle palladium can be thought of as 
one experiment per nanoparticle. So the overall 
experiment is averaging many, many individual "runs."


But I have not analyzed nanoparticle results, 
personally. I'm just pointing out what is a 
possibility. I'll note that nanoparticle, 
gas-loading, results have tended to be low, 
quantitatively, meaning to me that most of the 
"individual experiments" -- each nanoparticle -- 
is doing nothing. I.e., most experiments are 
"failing." But, then, the overall experiment 
averages together all the results, showing, if 
there are consistent results, a significant 
effect that *sometimes* arises. And then the 
engineering effort attempts to find ways to 
enhance that effect, to make it more reliable, which will raise energy yield.


Lomax referred to a specific experiment, and 
even a specific slide from a presentation. This 
was held up as particularly good evidence for 
CF. I examined that slide and was puzzled by one aspect. Here's what I wrote:


It's held up as an example of what stands in the 
way of recognition. If you see that slide, what 
do you think? If you knew, seeing the slide, that 
the same current excursion took place three 
times, that the cathode was already, before any 
of these excursions, heavily loaded (about 90%), 
would this shift your understanding of what it means?


"One problem I have with those results. When the 
current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It 
seems implausible that the deuterium would 
diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would 
expect a more gradual decline. Especially with 
all the reports of heat after death. That points to artifact to me."


heat after death occurs with some techniques. I 
do see, by the way, some HAD in that experiment. 
Just not a lot. Look at how the heat falls, it 
"bounces." The effect, first of all, is not much 
seen under equilibrium conditions. When you have 
high current, you have continual activity of 
deuterium at the surface, and it's a surface 
effect, apparently. What is going on inside the 
lattice, deeper, doesn't appear to matter, except 
that if there is low loading deeper in, the 
deuterium will rapidly migrate there. So to have 
very high loading at the surface -- 90% is very 
high, it used to be thought that 70% was the most 
you could get -- you have to have high 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> retracted.  About 150 groups investigated but found nothing.
>
>
> 450 publications about finding nothing? I've already given quotes showing
> you are wrong.
>

I suggest you read the book by Felix Franks, "Polywater," (MIT, 1981). I
have read it; you have not. You do not know what you are talking about.


And anyway, in the view of most scientists, 1000 people have investigated CF
> and found nothing.
>

That's preposterous. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

Stop trying to teach grandma how to suck eggs.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> > The experts' outrage vanished that evening when Orville finally took to
> the air. They were awestruck.
>
>
> Because, once in the air, it no longer used the derrick. It was a matter of
> duration. Similarly, if Rossi's device can take to the air, and stay in the
> air for some duration without its derrick, the world will be similarly
> awestruck.
>

In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large
crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed
affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles
in 39 minutes. Yet no one outside of Dayton believed a word of it. Not one
newspaper or journal. The Scientific American attacked, ridiculed and
belittled the Wrights, and continued to attack them at every opportunity,
most recently in 2003. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf

Kelly, F. C., "They Wouldn't Believe the Wrights had Flown -- A study in
human incredulity," Harper’s Magazine 18 1 (Aug 1940): 286-300

People have not grown wiser since 1908. The arguments used against the
Wrights were almost word-for-word the same as the ones you trot out against
the cold fusion today. See the quotes from the Sci. Am. and The New York
Globe, in my paper.

As late as 1912, when aviators showed up in small American cities and towns
to do demonstrations, crowds of people showed up to tar and feather them as
scammers and frauds, and sheriffs ran them out of town, because everyone
knew that people cannot fly. This history is well documented.

It does not matter how much evidence is presented, or how convincing it is.
People like those crowds back in 1912, and people like you, will not look.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.


But running an ecat or an electrolysis experiment? There is no similar
> piano-playing type skill needed.
>

Again, you reveal that you have no idea what you are talking about. I have
seen electrochemical experiments at Mizuno's lab which nearly killed some
observers, even though Mizuno is one of the most skilled electrochemists in
the world. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents

This is a lot like saying that if Orville Wright could fly in 1908, anyone
could. Most of the first 100 people who took to the air after him were dead
by 1912. Wilbur Wright was nearly killed in Washington, in September 1908,
and his passenger Selfridge was killed.



> > People who demand that this be made "easy" or available to anyone at this
> stage do not understand technology.
>
>
> But you said simple and obvious demonstrations have been done many times.
>

I said obvious. It is not simple. It will become simple in the future, just
as driving a car or operating a computer is now simple. The first computers
I operated and programmed in the 1960s and 70s were far beyond the ability
of ordinary people to operate. There was no doubt the computers worked, and
I could make them do things even the manufacturer did not know they could
do, but it was not simple. It sure as hell wasn't easy. If you think it was,
you have never done anything difficult, or original, or at the cutting edge
of technology or science. People who talk the way you do usually have not.
You stand on the sidelines and boast that you know better than those of us
who have, but you know nothing of what you speak.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Charles Hope]

This style of quotation is nonstandard and difficult to follow for large 
messages. Regular email clients handle the creation and display of nested 
quotations in an agreeable manner, which your formatting breaks. If you prefer 
to use a word processor for composition, please begin a reply, copy that to the 
word processor and add in-line comments normally, and then email that. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Jun 2, 2011, at 14:06, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
> wrote:
> 
> Cude>>Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them.
> 
> Lomax> Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what Cude 
> claimed, using "his own designates." 
> 
> OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly weakened 
> if I make the same claim using "vetted observers" or something like that.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"As a matter of principal, hiding behind a pseudo name is not regarded in
high esteem

within this group list, particularly when the poster posts copious

quantities of lengthy exposes that show a highly selective agenda:"


The agenda is not selected by me. With a regrettable exception or two (one
in a rather orthogonal thread on perpendicular fields), I have only
*responded* to threads with my name on them, in which my posts from
elsewhere were brought here for dissection.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

The following was said:

>From Rothwell:

> I myself consider this demand absurd. [self-running]

Joshua responded with:

> You would have to to continue believing in CF, considering
> in 22 years no one has been able to do it.

Joshua,

Setting the self-running debate and is it really Memorex aside for a moment...

Mr. Lomax can correct me if I misinterpreted his speculations but I
gather he suspects you might be a student - perhaps of physics, and
possibly even a graduate student at that. I gather Lomax also suspects
the name you use "Joshua Cude" is not your real name. As a matter of
principal, hiding behind a pseudo name is not regarded in high esteem
within this group list, particularly when the poster posts copious
quantities of lengthy exposes that show a highly selective agenda:
Yours being that all Cold Fusion claims turn out to be unfounded
and/or bogus - apparently every single one of them.

If you are a student (or perhaps someone who is doing the bidding of a
superior) I would like to add the following personal commentary:

I hope you have worked out an equitable arrangement with your
principal professor (or superior) concerning these on-going critiques
of Rossi's controversial claims. No matter what the outcome turns out
to be, hopefully you'll achieve a passing grade - or perhaps a
generous raise. I hate to see grad students, (or perhaps in this
situation: slave labor) being taken advantage of by superiors who
remain discreetly out of the lime light by letting the front man risk
taking the fall. As Mongo, of Blazing Saddles fame, once said "Mongo
only pawn in game of life."

Regardless of the fact that many in this group may not agree with your
personal conclusions, your posts have nevertheless achieved a certain
level of notoriety.

Perhaps that may have been your agenda all along. In which case:
"Mission Accomplished."

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

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene wrote:If there is one report that everyone interested in 
Rossi/E-Cat should read,

it is the 1994 final Thermacore report to DARPA. "Final Report, SBIR Phase
I, Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source."

Unfortunately it is not on the Web anymore, nor even on LENR/CANR, it seems
- although we talked about in 2009 and it appeared that Jed Rothwell was
going to put it up.


I forgot all about it. I think I asked permission and never got a response.

It is an unclassified government report. I guess I don't need 
permission. The document is in bad shape but I can run it through Pdf 
Converter and add an OCR layer. Might as well.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I myself consider this demand absurd. [self-running]


You would have to to continue believing in CF, considering in 22 years no
one has been able to do it.


> The experts' outrage vanished that evening when Orville finally took to
the air. They were awestruck.


Because, once in the air, it no longer used the derrick. It was a matter of
duration. Similarly, if Rossi's device can take to the air, and stay in the
air for some duration without its derrick, the world will be similarly
awestruck.


> Also, by the way, people who say that cold fusion is "too hard" or "anyone
should be able to do it" should think  hard about Orville on August 8, 1908.
He spent all day preparing to make one short flight. Tightening wires,
looking at the machine from all angles, running up the engine several times,
waiting for the wind to be just right.


It's easy to see why flying is difficult. It requires training, muscle
memory, like playing a piano, and anticipating many variables. No one
doubted it then or now.


But running an ecat or an electrolysis experiment? There is no similar
piano-playing type skill needed. The ecat especially, once the black box is
there, is supposed to be ready for the market. It's supposed to be turnkey.
So attaching a generator to it if the COP is high enough really should be
child's play. Sometimes comparisons are apples and oranges. This is one of
those.


> People who demand that this be made "easy" or available to anyone at this
stage do not understand technology.


But you said simple and obvious demonstrations have been done many times.


> They have no clue how difficult this is.


Of course we do. We think it's probably impossible. You can't be more
difficult than impossible.

RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jones Beene]

Joshua, and all others who are trying to get to the bottom of this -

If there is one report that everyone interested in Rossi/E-Cat should read,
it is the 1994 final Thermacore report to DARPA. "Final Report, SBIR Phase
I, Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source." 

Unfortunately it is not on the Web anymore, nor even on LENR/CANR, it seems
- although we talked about in 2009 and it appeared that Jed Rothwell was
going to put it up. He might do that now - since it is so close to the E-Cat
that it is eerie. I have the doc as an 8+ MB scan, and will send it to
anyone who is interested if Jed does not want it up on the site.

This could be the most important paper in the history of Nickel-hydrogen, at
least up to Rossi, if he has indeed pushed the technology over the top  -
and it presents a continuing mystery, especially in light of all of the
hoopla over Rossi. The experiment was gas-phase, but was spawned by the
electrolytic cell, which also gives lots of heat - and there is no
radioactivity. The underlying patent is about to expire: 

Thermacore  #5,273,635   December 28, 1993 - Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J.
(Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litz, PA); Ernst; Donald M.
(Leola, PA)

Though the original patent was owned by Thermacore, not BLP, that company
was bought up by Modine, and soon after all the inventors took early
retirement. This exciting technology could have simply been lost in the
transition, as a footnote in the history of Ni-H. Recently the company was
sold off by Modine and is now back in operation, again as Thermacore.

Consider this quote: "The most outstanding example is a cell producing 41
watts of heat with only 5 watts of electrical input. The cell has operated
continuously for over one year..."

OK, that is from 17 years ago, and it showed a COP of 8 for over one year.
Note: this claim is coming from the highest of high-tech companies - a prime
Pentagon contractor, and not some weird inventor who is honesty-challenged.
(and possibly the luckiest man on earth)

BTW, this is the company that invented the heat pipe. The claims should be
completely credible. 

Jones




<>

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> For credibility, Rossi must CLOSE THE LOOP – anything less is a waste of
> time and resources.

Only if he is trying to prove a point.  I don't think he is trying to
prove a point.  I think he wants to produce product.

T

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> His problem isn't GETTING the COP -- it's CONTROLLING it. It has to be
unconditionally stable -- and the original eCAT wasn't doing that.


It's very easy to produce stable electricity from extremely unstable
sources. One way would be to use the output to heat a large reservoir, and
run the power generator from the reservoir, through regulators and
batteries. Wind and solar are irregular, but the power they supply is nicely
stable.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


> No, that is not a bit implausible. This is like saying that because a
racing car can go 150 mph on a track, Jed's 1994 Geo Metro should be able to
drive at 150 mph on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.


No. It's like saying that because a racing car can go 150, a Geo Metro based
on the same principle should be able to move. That electrode cooled down
instantly.


>> But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious
way. CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such
demonstrations should be possible but are absent . . .


> Such demonstrations have been done many times.


And yet you said,


"I do not think any scientist will dispute this."


using the future tense.



> That is incorrect. Only one group of researchers thought they had observed
polywater. Another reported they saw it but quickly retracted.  About 150
groups investigated but found nothing.


450 publications about finding nothing? I've already given quotes showing
you are wrong.


And anyway, in the view of most scientists, 1000 people have investigated CF
and found nothing.


>>Not as simply and visually as you have described and wished for. Not
simply and visually enough to persuade a panel of experts.


>Every expert who has looked closely at cold fusion has been convinced it is
real. The DoE panel one-day extravaganza was not an investigation, it was a
parlor game.


It wasn't a one-day extravaganza. Half the panel members were given 30 days
to review material provided by the CF advocates. And presumably, they were
all given some time after to write their reports.


Anyway, it's the same parlor game played by every other branch of science.
If the CF people can't compete, and explain their results, in the same way
everyone else is expected to, it's their problem. It's not as if their
results are more difficult to explain.


Also, if such simple and obvious demonstrations have been done many times,
as you claim above, why should it take more than a day to be convinced by
them? If the claim is real, it should be easy to demonstrate.


> The panel members who were not persuaded did not do their homework.


If homework is required, then it is not simple and obvious, and so again,
you contradict yourself.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher wrote:

A suspicious observer might say Rossi reduced his promised COP to 6 from 
30 to give him an excuse for requiring an input; for why he can't close 
the loop.



His problem isn't GETTING the COP -- it's CONTROLLING it. It has to be 
unconditionally stable -- and the original eCAT wasn't doing that.


That is correct. Levi says they saw the cell run for a while with zero 
input, and it seemed to be dangerously out of control. Rossi confirms 
that a closed loop cell or a cell powered by anything other than 
reliable mains electricity is not safe, and it will take some time to 
engineer a safe version.


People who demand a closed-loop self sustaining demonstration are simply 
going to have to wait a while. That's all there is to it.


I myself consider this demand absurd. If you do not trust power meters 
and flow calorimetry, or you do not understand them, you will not 
appreciate a closed-loop demonstration either.


From 1904 to 1909, the Wright brothers used a large launching derrick 
to take off. They did that because there was not much wind in Dayton, 
OH, and what wind they had often shifted. Also because the Wrights 
launched from a wooden monorail which was a pain in the butt to lay down 
and move around, so they wanted to keep the launch track short, and take 
off in a short distance. (See photo here: 
http://www.thewrightbrothers.org/1904.html). Since the airplane did not 
take off on its own power during these years, technically, these were 
not "flights" as defined by aviation experts at the time.


When Orville was preparing to fly in France, on August 8 1908, and the 
experts arrived early. Some saw the derrick and were outraged, saying 
this was a circus trick, not a real flight. Orville went on with his 
careful, methodical preparations, which took hours. The experts' outrage 
vanished that evening when Orville finally took to the air. They were 
awestruck. They realized that their objection to the derrick was mere 
quibbling. The derrick did not detract from the accomplishment at all. 
It was obvious that the airplane could take off on its own, with wheels 
instead of a monorails, and a sufficiently long runway. Some naysayers 
continued to quibble, especially French aviators who wanted to convince 
the world that they were the first to fly, and the Wrights had not 
actually flown at all -- technically, at least. Orville eventually got 
fed up with this nonsense. Toward the end of the year (or in early 1909 
-- I don't recall the date) he equipped the airplane with wheels and 
took off without the derrick. He also flew for an hour continuously at a 
time when others could barely stagger off the ground in uncontrolled 
flights.


People today who claim they will not believe cold fusion, and the Rossi 
device in particular, until it is shown in self-sustaining mode, are 
being ridiculous. They are as ridiculous as the French aviators who 
refused to give credit where it is due, even after Orville flew in front 
of huge crowds for an hour.


Frankly, I suggest you stop this idiotic carping, and accept the fact 
that calorimetry works.


Also, by the way, people who say that cold fusion is "too hard" or 
"anyone should be able to do it" should think  hard about Orville on 
August 8, 1908. He spent all day preparing to make one short flight. 
Tightening wires, looking at the machine from all angles, running up the 
engine several times, waiting for the wind to be just right. It was as 
difficult as launching the SpaceShipOne X-prize winner is today. If 
Orville had made a serious mistake, he would have killed himself. (He 
did, in fact, make a mistake and he nearly did kill himself in that 
flight, but only he knew it.)


I can look out my window to the airstrip here at PDK and see people 
casually walking out to the airstrip, getting into airplanes and taking 
off a few minutes later. You can do that with a mature technology, after 
others have done it millions of times. You cannot do it with a newly 
invented technology such as a cold fusion cell today. People who demand 
that this be made "easy" or available to anyone at this stage do not 
understand technology. They have no clue how difficult this is. 
Conversely, people who say that because it is difficult today, it will 
always be difficult, are equally misguided.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> > The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and
> other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do
> this.
>
>
> It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency.
>

It is not inconsistent. You do not understand enough about the reaction to
understand why. And no, I will not teach you.



> I am not saying heat after death has not been observed because it was not
> observed in this experiment. I'm saying if heat after death occurs, and is
> attributed to the deuterium in the Pd, then it would seem implausible that
> the heat would vanish in seconds in another experiment.
>

No, that is not a bit implausible. This is like saying that because a racing
car can go 150 mph on a track, Jed's 1994 Geo Metro should be able to drive
at 150 mph on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard. There are many reasons why it
cannot, starting with the 40 HP engine.



> So, I'm questioning the attribution of the observation, not the observation
> itself.
>

You are questioning things you know nothing about. You are making absurd,
ignorant and unfounded assumptions, just as Robert Park and others have
done.



> But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way.
> CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations
> should be possible but are absent . . .
>

Such demonstrations have been done many times. You can photos of them. You
deny they have been done, but your denial does not change facts.

Go ahead and repeat that a hundred times if you like, it will still be
untrue. As former Prime Minister and Rep. from Mars Ichiro Hatoyama famously
said one the 7:00 o'clock news the other day: "That's a lie. Human beings
should not lie." ('Uso desu. Ningen wa uso wo tsuite wa naranai.')



> > It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but
> in a group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it
> is statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent.
>
>
> It's only about twice the size of the polywater cohort . . .
>

That is incorrect. Only one group of researchers thought they had observed
polywater. Another reported they saw it but quickly retracted.  About 150
groups investigated but found nothing.

I suggest you learn something about Polywater before pontificating about it.
Read the Franks book. You will see that a comparison to polywater shows that
cold fusion must be real.



> Not as simply and visually as you have described and wished for. Not simply
> and visually enough to persuade a panel of experts.
>

Every expert who has looked closely at cold fusion has been convinced it is
real. The DoE panel one-day extravaganza was not an investigation, it was a
parlor game. The panel members who were not persuaded did not do their
homework. The reasons they rejected the findings were absurd and mistaken,
although not as bad as your reasons. Those people were manifestly not
experts in cold fusion. At the end of that day, they still knew practically
nothing about the subject.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Alan Fletcher]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene < jone...@pacbell.net > wrote 




A suspicious observer might say Rossi reduced his promised COP to 6 from 30 to 
give him an excuse for requiring an input; for why he can't close the loop. 

His problem isn't GETTING the COP -- it's CONTROLLING it. It has to be 
unconditionally stable -- and the original eCAT wasn't doing that. I'm pretty 
sure (without evidence, of course) that the 130kW "brief" power spike in 
February was unintended. 

Suppose that cascaded from one eCat to another -- a 1MW plant suddenly 
generating 5MW would tend to go 'boom'. 

On the closed loop ... I'm not sure what efficiencies are available at 2.5kW. I 
posted a link a couple of weeks back to a helical turbine that promised 80% 
efficiency at eCat temperatures (500) and pressures (50) -- but the smallest 
unit was 40kW. 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Everyone on this forum, by now, should realize that nothing short of
closing the loop will convince the majority of skeptics, and with COP in the
range of 6, any grad student could pull that off at one tenth the cost of a
megawatt plant.



I agree, standalone is essential, as I've repeated many times.


And Rossi's device produces heat, and uses heat as input, so problems of
Carnot efficiency should not be present.


But if Rossi claims he needs electrical input for safety reasons he can't
divulge, then this COP of 6 is marginal at best. The COP of 30 claimed in
January would be easy, but not 6.


For an 80C temperature difference, the Carnot efficiency is only 21%, or
about 1/5. With practical losses, it would not be possible to close the
loop.


Of course, it should not be difficult to design the ecat to operate at
higher temperatures, to make it easier, but there may be excuses about that
too.


A suspicious observer might say Rossi reduced his promised COP to 6 from 30
to give him an excuse for requiring an input; for why he can't close the
loop.

RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jones Beene]

From: Joshua Cude 

 

"I should add that even if some people consider the results to be
reproducible and theoretically consistent (which is certainly the case), the
absence of a simple demonstration, when one is possible, would still be
cause for skepticism."

 

 

Finally at bit of insight emerges from Cude !  This should have been his one
and only argument, all along.

 

And this has been my point of (milder) skepticism for months - if COP of 6
is really there, and is reproducible (you can forget the part about
"theoretical consistent" as no one cares) then the ONLY real option which
can and WILL completely remove all possible doubt is to 'close the loop'. 

 

Go completely self-powered with the small unit by recycling the heat in situ
- to provide the needed electrical current (several ways to do this) and do
it in wheel-mounted device that can be rolled out into the parking lot, if
necessary.

 

Everyone on this forum, by now, should realize that nothing short of closing
the loop will convince the majority of skeptics, and with COP in the range
of 6, any grad student could pull that off at one tenth the cost of a
megawatt plant. It is a no-brainer.

 

The megawatt of heat will probably convince a few fence straddlers, but
since it will be almost as easy to fake, then most skeptics will still be
shaking their heads in October.

 

For credibility, Rossi must CLOSE THE LOOP - anything less is a waste of
time and resources.

 

Jones

 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:


I wrote:

> But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way.
CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations
should be possible but are absent, and there is no reproducibility,
theoretical consistency, or scientific consensus, then it is reasonable to
reject the claims until better evidence comes along.


I should add that even if some people consider the results to be
reproducible and theoretically consistent (which is certainly the case), the
absence of a simple demonstration, when one is possible, would still be
cause for skepticism.


It would be as if the Wright brothers had gone to France and showed everyone
charts and graphs and publications indicating measurements of altitude, and
time aloft, and routes flown and so on. Even if they were right, people
would be forgiven for being skeptical if they refused or were unable to
*show* them.


Koonin made the same point back in 1989, when he quoted Aesop's fable, The
Leap at Rhodes:


*A certain man who visited foreign lands could talk of little when he
returned to his home except the wonderful adventures he had met with and the
great deeds he had done abroad.*

**

*One of the feats he told about was a leap he had made in a city Called
Rhodes. That leap was so great, he said, that no other man could leap
anywhere near the distance. A great many persons in Rhodes had seen him do
it and would prove that what he told was true.*

**

*"No need of witnesses," said one of the hearers. "Suppose this city is
Rhodes. Now show us how far you can jump."*

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other
do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do
this.


It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency.


Lomax referred to a specific experiment, and even a specific slide from a
presentation. This was held up as particularly good evidence for CF. I
examined that slide and was puzzled by one aspect. Here's what I wrote:


"One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat
dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out
of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. *Especially
with all the reports of heat after death*. That points to artifact to me."


So, given that some cells show heat after death, meaning the deuterium does
not diffuse out of the Pd right away, how could it be that in this
particularly good experiment, the deuterium could diffuse out seemingly in a
matter of seconds. It suggests that the explanation being used to explain it
is wrong. That there's an artifact.


> Nature does work the way you demand it should. This is experimental
science. You have to take the results as they are, and not dictate what they
should be according to your theories.


Yes. Obviously. But one picks theories that are consistent with results and
rejects those that aren't.




>> We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is
there a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after
death?


> No, because that experiment did not produce heat after death, as I noted
previously. You need to stop demanding what is not there.


Not a demand. An observation. If deuterium in Pd produces heat, why does the
heat vanish instantly when the current is shut off? In this experiment.


> You need to stop pointing to black birds as proof that red ones do not
exist.


That's not even close to what I said. I am not saying heat after death has
not been observed because it was not observed in this experiment. I'm saying
if heat after death occurs, and is attributed to the deuterium in the Pd,
then it would seem implausible that the heat would vanish in seconds in
another experiment. So, I'm questioning the attribution of the observation,
not the observation itself.


It's more like you pointing to flying red birds and claiming that it proves
they are lighter than air, and me pointing out that I caught some black
birds, and weighed them, and they are heavier than air, and they can fly
too.


>> The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced.


> Some of panel members were convinced, and some are not. The ones who are
not convinced made logical and factual errors similar to the ones you are
making.


Only one said the evidence for nuclear reactions was conclusive, but *some*
not being convinced is all I need for my argument.


You said:


"I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains
palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be…"


It was hypothetical, and written after the DOE panel, so you could not have
said that if you thought such a demo had been available.


You can squirm all you want. You effectively admitted that an isolated
device palpably warmer than the surroundings would be a good demo, and that
it has not yet been done.



> It is not possible for you to see what is connect to what inside of a
Tokamak reactor, or in a robot explorer on Mars.


Quite right. I said as much. Many experiments require indirect observations,
and second hand observations, and in those cases, reproducibility,
theoretical consistency and predictability, scientific unanimity or at least
consensus all work together to build credibility.


But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way.
CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations
should be possible but are absent, and there is no reproducibility,
theoretical consistency, or scientific consensus, then it is reasonable to
reject the claims until better evidence comes along.


> It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but in
a group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it is
statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent.


It's only about twice the size of the polywater cohort, and probably smaller
than the homeopathy cohort, and certainly smaller than the UFO cohort, so
I'm not buying it. There are many examples of large groups of scientists
being wrong. And to repeat, if CF is right, then a much larger group of
scientists would have to be incompetent.


>>> What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the
discussion.


>> Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this
discussion. Cop out.


> I am not obligated to explain every single technical detail to you, or to
anyone else.


Of co

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> Maybe you weren't paying attention. Lomax referred to the Mckubre data in a
> particular pdf on your site, and I said in that data, which is held in such
> high regard, it doesn't make sense that the power drops so quickly when the
> current is shut off, particularly in light of heat after death claims.
>

The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other
do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this.
Nature does work the way you demand it should. This is experimental science.
You have to take the results as they are, and not dictate what they should
be according to your theories.



> We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is there
> a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after
> death?
>

No, because that experiment did not produce heat after death, as I noted
previously. You need to stop demanding what is not there. You need to stop
pointing to black birds as proof that red ones do not exist. One graph
cannot show all aspects of cold fusion.


The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced.
>

Some of panel members were convinced, and some are not. The ones who are not
convinced made logical and factual errors similar to the ones you are
making.



> Sixty minutes at least, considering they were pretty sympathetic, might
> have mentioned it. But on a show advocating CF, with consultants like
> McKubre and Dardik, there was not a word about heat after death or heat
> without input in gas loading.
>

This is twice removed from being a scientific argument:

1. Mass media presentations are not admissible experimental evidence. This
discussion is about science, not television production values.

2. This is your opinion of the production values at "60 Minutes." You
opinion about what makes compelling television has absolutely no bearing on
experiments. By the way, I disagree with your opinion -- but my opinion on
this subject is equally irrelevant.



> In a demonstration to outsiders who can't even see what's connected, it's
> impossible to be sure what the measurements mean.
>

That argument fails for two reasons:

1. It is not falsifiable.
2. It applies to nearly all other experiments, in all other fields.

It is not possible for you to see what is connect to what inside of a
Tokamak reactor, or in a robot explorer on Mars. It is not possible for you
watch every procedure in a cloning experiment, or a medical study on cancer,
or in a Top quark experiment. You can reject any finding in any field of
science with the argument that the researchers may be lying or incompetent.

It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but in a
group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it is
statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent. In point of fact, I
can judge their competence, and so can Storms and the others who have
reviewed the field. It is easy to show that most of them are competent,
honest and sane.

A few reviewers, such as you, Robert Park and Slakey, have concluded that
all researchers are wrong or incompetent, but you are mistaken. Your
arguments are irrational and factually wrong. Your judgement proves only
that you, Park and Slakey are not fit to judge this subject. It is not
possible that thousand of professional scientists, and a handful of people
such as Park -- who brags he has not read a single paper -- is right.



> > What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the
> discussion.
>
>
> Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this
> discussion. Cop out.
>

I am not obligated to explain every single technical detail to you, or to
anyone else. I have upload 1,200 papers on this subject, giving you every
opportunity to learn this sort of thing for yourself. "Cop out" is a snappy
come-back but you are incorrect. The reasons are beyond the scope of the
discussion. You are demanding the impossible. If you do not understand why
this is impossible, that is additional proof that you do not know what you
are talking about, and you have not done your homework.



> But heat can be demonstrated simply and visually. . .
>

It can, and it has been. See the boil off experiments. In this case you will
not take "yes" for an answer. What you demand to see has been published, but
you refuse to look, or to acknowledge it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:


Lomax>>> "Reputable scientists" won't even look at the evidence!


Cude>>Most looked a long time ago,


Lomax>No. Most never actually looked at it, after enough evidence had
accumulated to allow some kind of reasonable decision. That didn't happen
until something like the mid 1990s. The rejection happened sooner, before
there was adequate evidence, but it was not based on proof of absence,
rather on absence of proof.


The DOE looked again in 2004, and did not find conclusive evidence then
either.



>> and are satisfied that if the claims (as I put it above) were real, a
convincing demo would be a piece of cake to design.


> Really? Below I show why that's very wrong. It's not the norm in physics,


But this is a claim of heat. Most claims are not as simple as that.


>> And then along comes Rossi, and all the advocates are saying *this* is
what the field has been waiting for. *This* is finally the demo Rothwell and
Mallove had been wishing for.


> Which demo?



All of them, collectively, I suppose.


> When I saw the reports of the January demo, I wrote to CMNS researchers
and practically begged them to not comment on it, because of the
consequences if it turned out to be fraud or error. From the January demo,
maybe error was still possible, but even then, I was warning about the
possibility of fraud. The later reports shifted the situation. Error became
quite unlikely and fraud seems unlikely too,


I don't see how the later experiments, which had the same problems as the
first made things any better, unless you're hanging your hat on the secret
experiment.


> So Huizenga knew it was important when Miles confirmed helium commensurate
with heat. With no gamma rays.


>>Does Huizenga believe in cold fusion now? No.


> Uh, have you asked him such that you can confidently proclaim what he
believes? I'm not going to repeat rumors I've heard. I was talking about
1993, almost twenty years ago, when Huizenga was very active still.


He didn't believe it after Miles in 1993, so he did not consider it a
confirmation. And if in the intervening period, he became convinced, I've
not heard him say so.



>>The 2nd part of that was done for Focardi, and some people still kept
believing, and now after Rossi, I think the doubters believe in Focardi
again. So that's not enough.


> No, there was a single experiment done that may be interpreted as being
something like that,


That was interpreted exactly like that by some... Rothwell also claimed
Mckubre did an experiment like that.


>>It's highly unlikely to happen, because even the people who believe in CF
don't seem to be doing quantitative heat-helium experiments.


> Not any more. They did them in the 1990s. Look at how much research
funding it gained them.


They might try doing some replications of Miles (which you called crude)
that pass peer review.


>> Skeptics would not waste their time until someone produces evidence that
impresses them -- that at least passes peer review, but probably it would
need to be more than that.


> Chicken and egg, and this isn't science, it's politics.


Not chicken and egg. There are plenty of CF papers published under peer
review.


> Tell you what, Joshua,


Hey, you've dropped the 3rd person.


[stuff about CR-39]


The results are not convincing and not replicated.


>> I think it's reasonable to use previous knowledge to make reasonable
predictions about certain configurations, and change them when evidence
justifies it. Otherwise, progress would be impossible. I think you said this
yourself.


> Yes. we use previous knowledge, quite precisely, to "make reasonable
predictions," but it is another step to believe in the predictions so
strongly that we discard evidence without due caution, allowing for error in
predictions.


I agree. I'm discarding evidence because it stinks. And because evidence
that smells like roses would be easy to produce if the effect were real.


> […]The evidence was garbled when described by the bureaucrat summarizing,
and I tracked that down to a misunderstanding by the bureaucrat of one of
the reviewers, who likewise clearly misread the report.[…]

And Hagelstein used it in the 2004 report. It seems to me that it was not
explained well, but I'm not sure why, or how that happened. I've heard
researchers say various things about it, but, I could put it this way: they
did not hire experts at communication.


This really says it all. Scientists talking to scientists needing to hire
experts at communication to convey the identification of heat a million
times higher in density than chemical heat. It shows either complete
incompetence at their trade, or more likely, the absence of an effect, or
both.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Cude>>In slide 7 of that pdf that Lomax pointed to, the current density is
shut off at about 610 (units?) and the excess power immediately goes to
zero.


Rothwell> This cell is not in heat after death. Other cells have been.


That's what I said. I was commenting on the data Lomax referred to, and said
the immediate drop in power seemed implausible if it was from D-Pd,
especially because other experiments claim heat after death.



> When I tell there are red birds, do not point to black ones and say that
proves red ones do not exist.


Maybe you weren't paying attention. Lomax referred to the Mckubre data in a
particular pdf on your site, and I said in that data, which is held in such
high regard, it doesn't make sense that the power drops so quickly when the
current is shut off, particularly in light of heat after death claims. I
never denied heat after death.


> >the red excess power data points overlap the green current density line
as they both fall to zero. Am I reading that graph wrong?


> No, you are looking at the wrong graph. Look at one that shows heat after
death.


We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is there
a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after
death?


>> If that had been shown already, and given that scientists are in general
not convinced of CF, you could not have made that statement.


> Most of the scientists I have encountered who are not convinced have never
heard of heat after death.


Unequivocal revolutions have a way of getting around. If no scientist could
possibly deny the results, then they would not keep mum about it. The DOE
panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced. So that
contradicts your statement. Sixty minutes at least, considering they were
pretty sympathetic, might have mentioned it. But on a show advocating CF,
with consultants like McKubre and Dardik, there was not a word about heat
after death or heat without input in gas loading.


>> In the heat after death or gas-loading, the cells or chambers are still
connected, and in most of those cases, it is impossible to be sure what the
input is and what is being measured.


> It is quite easy to be sure of this. In an electrochemical cell after
boil-off, there is no connection between the anode and cathode, so it is
physically impossible for current to flow. Also, all cells are equipped with
sensitive, modern voltmeters and ammeters, which show with absolute
certainty that there is no input power. Few phenomena in nature can be
measured with as much precision or certainty as electricity, so it is
strange that you claim "it is  impossible to be sure" of electric power
measurements.


In a demonstration to outsiders who can't even see what's connected, it's
impossible to be sure what the measurements mean. And it would be so easy to
demonstrate it conclusively. Take that electrode after the boil off and put
it in an isolated thermos, and measure see how long it can keep it boiling
or whatever. Take that thermos with nothing connected to it, and the water
boiling madly, to the DOE, and see if they don't pay attention.



>> What I want is, if Dardik's electrode is really generating a half a watt
of power for days without input, take that electrode out, keep it inside the
liquid if necessary, and put it in a separate beaker or clear thermos with
100 mL of water on a separate table far away from all those wires and tubes
and meters and complications.


> What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the
discussion.


Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this
discussion. Cop out.


> But what makes you think that wires, tubes and meter are "complications"?
This is rather like saying that the spark plugs and pistons in an automobile
engine are frivolous add-ons we can easily dispense with.


Well if you claimed they weren't needed to move the car, then yes.


I know that not all phenomena are simple to demonstrate in a visual way, and
some measurements are indirect, and then we have to depend on
reproducibility and so on.


But heat can be demonstrated simply and visually, and when wild claims are
made that could be but aren't demonstrated simply, then it looks
suspicious.


>> This would be an excellent demonstration for the likes of 60 minutes. But
instead they showed Duncan doing calculations in a notebook. And they didn't
even mention heat after death.


> What would make a good demonstration, and whether "60 Minutes" mentioned
something or not has no bearing on the discussion.


Yes it does. 60 minutes looks for visual and dramatic things to entertain
and interest their audience. You claimed they exist, but none were used.


> Dardik published it.


In a conference proceeding, with very limited description of the experiment.
For a revolutionary result, that doesn't wash.


> In a scientific discussion, what the mass media says, shows, or 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Harry Veeder]

- Original Message 
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:05:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and 
> a 
>discussion of the chimera of cold fusion
> 
> At 07:17 PM 6/2/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Does Huizenga believe in cold fusion now? No.
> 
> Uh, have you asked him such that you can confidently proclaim what he 
> believes? 
>I'm not going to repeat rumors I've heard. I was talking about 1993, almost 
>twenty years ago, when Huizenga was very active still.


According to this Huizenga is now 90.

http://nuchem.chem.rochester.edu/huizenga85/index.html

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:17 PM 6/2/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:


> "Reputable scientists" won't even look at the evidence!


Most looked a long time ago,


No. Most never actually looked at it, after 
enough evidence had accumulated to allow some 
kind of reasonable decision. That didn't happen 
until something like the mid 1990s. The rejection 
happened sooner, before there was adequate 
evidence, but it was not based on proof of 
absence, rather on absence of proof. A rejection 
based on absence of proof must never stand when 
proof appears; but that's what happens when 
people become so convinced that they won't look 
at new evidence -- or deeper analysis of old.


 and are satisfied that if the claims (as I put 
it above) were real, a convincing demo would be a piece of cake to design.


Really? Below I show why that's very wrong. It's 
not the norm in physics, because physics, as a 
field, generally deals with highly simplified 
situations. It's more common in chemistry and 
even more common in biology. Complex systems can 
be difficult to set up in fixed, clearly established conditions.


What P13/P14 below showed was an effect that was 
real, and which, in fact, is reproducible in that 
similar results are seen by anyone who runs 
enough cells, but which isn't specifically 
controllable in such a way as to make it a "piece 
of cake." At least not then, and my understanding 
of the field, excepting now, Rossi, if Rossi has 
really done what he's claimed, is that this situation remains.


I've described a reproducible cold fusion 
experiment that actually shows strong evidence 
that the reaction is not only real, it's fusion. 
It is not a piece of cake, it's *difficult.* But 
it's quite doable, and it's been done by about a 
dozen groups. I'm not fully satisfied with how 
much work has been done, I'd love to see more 
extensive study, but this is expensive work, and, 
since I see no particular commercial value coming 
from it in the near future, who is going to do it?


As pure science, it is surely valuable, but 
thinking like Joshua's shut that down twenty years ago.


We were talking about cold fusion in general, not 
Rossi. Rossi could indeed design a "convincing 
demo," it would indeed be, relatively, a piece of 
cake. Which is why I'm noting that he has some 
strong reasons not to do such a demo, and why I'd 
think that Joshua is doing exactly what Rossi 
would want. It serves his purposes, commercially.


Rossi is not operating for the advancement of 
science, he's operating for profit. Now, he might 
tell himself that, for the greater good, he has 
to do it this way, and I'm not about to debate 
that or blame him, I'm just pointing out the 
obvious: if there is a really convincing demo 
such that the media are all over him, his 
competition will gain massive funding, and 
rapidly, i.e. other researchers in a position to 
investigate NiH. Do you think the U.S. government 
would send Rossi a check if Rossi were to do a killer demo?


And then along comes Rossi, and all the 
advocates are saying *this* is what the field 
has been waiting for. *This* is finally the demo 
Rothwell and Mallove had been wishing for. And 
when you look at the demo, and see that it 
proves nothing at all, one is forced to conclude 
that the previous CF demos are even worse.


Which demo? When I saw the reports of the January 
demo, I wrote to CMNS researchers and practically 
begged them to not comment on it, because of the 
consequences if it turned out to be fraud or 
error. From the January demo, maybe error was 
still possible, but even then, I was warning 
about the possibility of fraud. The later reports 
shifted the situation. Error became quite 
unlikely and fraud seems unlikely too, for 
reasons I won't detail now, I've expressed them 
before. Hence I think Rossi is probably for real. 
Frankly, there are things about that which I 
don't like, but so what? The universe does not 
revolve around what I like and dislike.


Fortunately, actually. It's better than what I'd 
prefer, that's my general position about myself.


> So Huizenga knew it was important when Miles 
confirmed helium commensurate with heat. With no gamma rays.



Does Huizenga believe in cold fusion now? No.


Uh, have you asked him such that you can 
confidently proclaim what he believes? I'm not 
going to repeat rumors I've heard. I was talking 
about 1993, almost twenty years ago, when Huizenga was very active still.


> Okay, the experiment that will pull the rug 
out from under my acceptance of cold fusion: [...]



So, you want a demonstration that heat-helium 
are not correlated and that exposes the artifact 
that produces what people interpret as heat.


That's right. A real scientist would simply say 
that the attempt would be made to confirm or 
reject the heat-helium correlation and to clarify 
issues around the various measurements.


The 2nd part of that was done for Focardi, and 
some people still kept believing, and now after 
Rossi, I think the doubt

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> Rothwell> A few percent of what? The error margin? Look at the bottom.
>
>
> A few percent of the input (5 to 10), and total of about 1/2 watt.
>

Well, I would not call 10% a few, but okay. McKubre observed 300% in other
cases, which I would definitely not call "a few." What is the percent when
there is no input, in heat after death or gas loading?



> >That is incorrect, as are most of your other assertions. That is
> particularly incorrect. Some cells remain hot for hours or days.
>
>
> In slide 7 of that pdf that Lomax pointed to, the current density is shut
> off at about 610 (units?) and the excess power immediately goes to zero.
>

This cell is not in heat after death. Other cells have been. When I tell
there are red birds, do not point to black ones and say that proves red ones
do not exist.



> the red excess power data points overlap the green current density line as
> they both fall to zero. Am I reading that graph wrong?
>

No, you are looking at the wrong graph. Look at one that shows heat after
death.



> > That would be a gas loaded cell, or a cell in heat after death. There are
> dozens of examples of that in the literature, so you have been given what
> you want.
>
>
> No. I haven't. And you know it. I call it the Rothwell beaker because you
> yourself have suggested it as a convincing experiment:
>
>
> "With a small (half liter) insulated cell, the surface area should be small
> enough that the
>

Yes, I suggested that, and as I just said, that describes a cell in heat
after death, or a gas loaded cell.



> If that had been shown already, and given that scientists are in general
> not convinced of CF, you could not have made that statement.
>

Most of the scientists I have encountered who are not convinced have never
heard of heat after death. They have no knowledge of this field at all,
because they have not read about it. Robert Park is a good example. Such
people have no right to any opinion, positive or negative. Their opinions
count for nothing, and must be ignored.



> In the heat after death or gas-loading, the cells or chambers are still
> connected, and in most of those cases, it is impossible to be sure what the
> input is and what is being measured.
>

It is quite easy to be sure of this. In an electrochemical cell after
boil-off, there is no connection between the anode and cathode, so it is
physically impossible for current to flow. Also, all cells are equipped with
sensitive, modern voltmeters and ammeters, which show with absolute
certainty that there is no input power. Few phenomena in nature can be
measured with as much precision or certainty as electricity, so it is
strange that you claim "it is  impossible to be sure" of electric power
measurements. This is bit like saying that in clear weather it is impossible
to know whether it is midday or midnight.



> Take Dardik's claim of heat after death. The foil is deep inside his
> apparatus, the electrodes are still connected, and probably the ultrasound
> is still singing. Who knows?
>

I know, and Robert Duncan knows. When the power is off, the ultrasound
cannot continue. It requires electric power.



> What I want is, if Dardik's electrode is really generating a half a watt of
> power for days without input, take that electrode out, keep it inside the
> liquid if necessary, and put it in a separate beaker or clear thermos with
> 100 mL of water on a separate table far away from all those wires and tubes
> and meters and complications.
>

What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the
discussion. But what makes you think that wires, tubes and meter are
"complications"? This is rather like saying that the spark plugs and pistons
in an automobile engine are frivolous add-ons we can easily dispense with.



> This would be an excellent demonstration for the likes of 60 minutes. But
> instead they showed Duncan doing calculations in a notebook. And they didn't
> even mention heat after death.
>

What would make a good demonstration, and whether "60 Minutes" mentioned
something or not has no bearing on the discussion. Dardik published it. "60
Minutes" is not a journal or conference proceedings.

In a scientific discussion, what the mass media says, shows, or does is
not admissible evidence.



> Same goes for the gas-loading experiments. In Arata's experiment the device
> stays at a constant temperature a degree or two above ambient, but ambient
> wasn't monitored . . .
>

Yes, it was. It was not recorded by the computer in the first experiment,
but it was monitored. In subsequent experiments and replications, it was
monitored and recorded.



> , and the thing was still connected to pressure pumps etc.
>

What bearing does that have on the calorimetry?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Cude >> So, the best evidence you have for CF is from an experiment in 1994,
in which the excess heat is a few per cent . . .


Rothwell> A few percent of what? The error margin? Look at the bottom.


A few percent of the input (5 to 10), and total of about 1/2 watt.




>> One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the
heat dies immediately.


>That is incorrect, as are most of your other assertions. That is
particularly incorrect. Some cells remain hot for hours or days.


In slide 7 of that pdf that Lomax pointed to, the current density is shut
off at about 610 (units?) and the excess power immediately goes to zero. the
red excess power data points overlap the green current density line as they
both fall to zero. Am I reading that graph wrong?


>> I have frequently asked for the Rothwell beaker. An obviously isolated
device that remains warmer than its environment (or gets hotter) for a long
enough period to obviously generate its own weight in chemical energy.


> That would be a gas loaded cell, or a cell in heat after death. There are
dozens of examples of that in the literature, so you have been given what
you want.


No. I haven't. And you know it. I call it the Rothwell beaker because you
yourself have suggested it as a convincing experiment:


"With a small (half liter) insulated cell, the surface area should be small
enough that the heat from the outer wall will be palpable (that is,
sensible). ... It is utterly impossible to fake palpable heat I do not
think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains palpably
warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be..."


If that had been shown already, and given that scientists are in general not
convinced of CF, you could not have made that statement.


In the heat after death or gas-loading, the cells or chambers are still
connected, and in most of those cases, it is impossible to be sure what the
input is and what is being measured.


Take Dardik's claim of heat after death. The foil is deep inside his
apparatus, the electrodes are still connected, and probably the ultrasound
is still singing. Who knows? What I want is, if Dardik's electrode is really
generating a half a watt of power for days without input, take that
electrode out, keep it inside the liquid if necessary, and put it in a
separate beaker or clear thermos with 100 mL of water on a separate table
far away from all those wires and tubes and meters and complications. So
that all you have is one beaker and one electrode (maybe inside a little
test tube).  If Dardik claims that the Pd foil is producing 0.5 W without
input for 4 days, as he does in experiment US3-5, in a couple of hours the
temperature should climb about 10 degrees C. And if the thermos doesn't lose
too much heat, it'll be boiling by next morning. This would be an excellent
demonstration for the likes of 60 minutes. But instead they showed Duncan
doing calculations in a notebook. And they didn't even mention heat after
death.


Same goes for the gas-loading experiments. In Arata's experiment the device
stays at a constant temperature a degree or two above ambient, but ambient
wasn't monitored, and the thing was still connected to pressure pumps etc.
At the least, try wrapping some fiberglass insulation around the chamber,
and see if the temperature climbs a little. But you really want to remove
that Pd, isolate it obviously, under pressure, if necessary, and see if it
can heat water far away from anything else.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> So, the best evidence you have for CF is from an experiment in 1994, in
> which the excess heat is a few per cent . . .
>

A few percent of what? The error margin? Look at the bottom.



> One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat
> dies immediately.
>

That is incorrect, as are most of your other assertions. That is *
particularly* incorrect. Some cells remain hot for hours or days.




> I have frequently asked for the Rothwell beaker. An obviously isolated
> device that remains warmer than its environment (or gets hotter) for a long
> enough period to obviously generate its own weight in chemical energy.
>

That would be a gas loaded cell, or a cell in heat after death. There are
dozens of examples of that in the literature, so you have been given what
you want.

Or perhaps you mean this in the literal sense that you want someone to hand
over something like this to you, in person. I do not think it is likely
anyone would do that. You could go to a lab and see something like that, as
I have done.

If Rossi is correct, you should be able to purchase a working reactor next
year for 5000 euros. I am sure that nothing less than this will convince
you.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> Rossi isn't in the least interested in pleasing Joshua.


True. But he's doing demos. And I'm free to explain why they don't convince
me, and what would.



> Which, by the way, would include opprobrium and even possibly jail time if
he is committing a fraud, even a "pious" one. (I.e, say he believes that
this thing works, there is just this little kink, and to get over this hump,
well ...


Somehow, Mills has gone 20 years promising a new energy source, without a
single commercial product, and without even being formally accused of fraud.
Rossi may believe his ecat works, and Mills may believe in hydrinos, and
they may never succeed in getting a commercial product to the open market.
And they may both be innocent of fraud or both be guilty. Who knows. But
failing to deliver does not guarantee jail time.


> Does this prove that cold fusion is real? No. However, several years of
review of the evidence have convinced me that the evidence for *some kind of
low energy nuclear reaction* is very strong, i.e, a million to one.


I can quibble too, since you put LENR (a misnomer) in all lower case.
Nuclear reactions occur at low energy, obviously. Fission, alpha decay etc
all occur naturally at low temperature. Even fusion has a tiny probability.
The claim is that the nuclear reactions in otherwise non-radioactive
material can be induced using essentially chemical or electrical means at
rates sufficiently high to produce heat at useful (or even measurable)
levels. I've looked at most of the evidence usually cited to support this,
and I'd give reciprocal odds: one in a million. (That's generous.)


> "Reputable scientists" won't even look at the evidence!


Most looked a long time ago, and are satisfied that if the claims (as I put
it above) were real, a convincing demo would be a piece of cake to design.
That's the point. Twenty years later and 60 minutes uses Dardik's
unbelievably opaque experiment and an expert's testimony after days of
analysis to prove energy density a million times higher than gasoline. Why
would anyone bother to look at such evidence, if not to enjoy the banter
with believers?


And then along comes Rossi, and all the advocates are saying *this* is what
the field has been waiting for. *This* is finally the demo Rothwell and
Mallove had been wishing for. And when you look at the demo, and see that it
proves nothing at all, one is forced to conclude that the previous CF demos
are even worse.



> So Huizenga knew it was important when Miles confirmed helium commensurate
with heat. With no gamma rays.


Does Huizenga believe in cold fusion now? No.


> Okay, the experiment that will pull the rug out from under my acceptance
of cold fusion: [...]


So, you want a demonstration that heat-helium are not correlated and that
exposes the artifact that produces what people interpret as heat.


The 2nd part of that was done for Focardi, and some people still kept
believing, and now after Rossi, I think the doubters believe in Focardi
again. So that's not enough.


But OK, you've given an experiment that would cause you to doubt CF. It's
highly unlikely to happen, because even the people who believe in CF don't
seem to be doing quantitative heat-helium experiments. Skeptics would not
waste their time until someone produces evidence that impresses them -- that
at least passes peer review, but probably it would need to be more than
that.



>>> And from what I can tell, that's exactly what Rossi wants at this time.


>>Fine. But I if even Rossi agrees that his demos don't give evidence of
excess heat, why exactly should I think there is excess heat?


>You shouldn't.


Good. I don't.


> But neither should you think that there is no excess heat, unless you
have, yourself, clear evidence that there is not.


Everywhere? I should think there is excess heat in every possible
experimental situation? I think it's reasonable to use previous knowledge to
make reasonable predictions about certain configurations, and change them
when evidence justifies it. Otherwise, progress would be impossible. I think
you said this yourself.


> […] What I know is that LENR is possible, that's not in question,

>> Hmm. I thought you said belief like this is not a scientific position.
It's religious. […]

Nope. I'm not attached to it.


But you don't question it.


> To give an idea of what it took, take a look at page 7 of
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusion.pdf, a graph of
results from P13/P14. I must have seen that graph dozens of times before I
realized what it implied. Does McKubre really explain it in this slide show?


> No. Nor have I seen him explain it in a way that will convey the point
I'll be making. He knows the point, he'll recognize it immediately, I'm
sure, but I don't think I've seen it explained by anyone anywhere, except
for me, in a few discussions.


[proof of CF because it is not reproducible]


So, the best evidence you have 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:04 PM 6/2/2011, Peter Gluck wrote:

Dear Joshua

Please answer the message re our Protocol. Let's
focus on future- we are not historians and cannot change the Past.


If we were, perhaps we would change it cheerfully?

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:06 PM 6/2/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:


Cude>>Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them.

Lomax> Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply 
what Cude claimed, using "his own designates."


OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly 
weakened if I make the same claim using "vetted observers" or 
something like that.


Polemically, and as far as probabilities of collusion or gullibility, 
it's very different, and that's why, I suggest, Joshua used the 
wording he did. He didn't use the "wrong word," he used exactly the 
wording he wanted to present his point.



> Now, I've corresponded with scientists at Wikipedia who were 
actually skeptical but who did not want to be known as even 
thinking that cold fusion might be real, or as willing to look at 
evidence, they were afraid for their careers.



I agree, this is a problem.




Many would simply dismiss the idea and not want to waste their time. 
So yes, finding credible experts is a problem. Sending ecats out 
under NDAs would be easier, but also not likely to happen.


That's why you pay the experts, like Robert Duncan. There aren't many 
who will risk their professional future without being paid. (This 
isn't any slight against Duncan, in the least, rather it's kudos to 
Kullander and Essen. Unless, I suppose, Ny Teknik paid them as 
consultants -- which would be perfectly okay.


I'll note that some major cold fusion researchers were exactly that, 
researchers who had no dog in the race except serving their clients. 
This would be Michael McKubre, as perhaps the foremost example, but 
we could also add Nate Hoffman, even if Jed Rothwell starts spitting 
a mixture of wet and dry steam. It was Hoffman's skeptical 
presentation that actually alerted me, the most, to the possibility 
that CF was real. Hoffman was a real skeptic. Sure, he may have made 
some mistakes. But everyone makes mistakes.


Kullander and Essen and Lewan might have made some mistakes too. But 
their medal for bravery stands anyway. The courage to investigate 
includes and covers the possibility of making mistakes. Someone like 
Joshua Cude has nothing to lose, he can spout what turns out to be 
complete nonsense and, he imagines, he'll suffer no consequences.


That's an illusion. He will have to live with what he's written and 
said for the rest of his life. He'll know. And, I wonder, what will 
he tell his children and grandchildren, if he has any?


That's why I'm fixated on a completely visual demonstration. Boiling 
1000 L of water in the middle of an open field with nothing but an 
ecat would attract attention. The thing about this revolutionary 
claim is that a visual demonstration is possible. Why not give one.


We have explained why not many times, and that Joshua is fixated on 
something else doesn't mean anything. Rossi isn't in the least 
interested in pleasing Joshua. He doesn't even care about pleasing 
me, nor do I have any right at all to expect that he would. He did 
the work, his life and reputation and money are invested, he deserves 
his reward.


Which, by the way, would include opprobrium and even possibly jail 
time if he is committing a fraud, even a "pious" one. (I.e, say he 
believes that this thing works, there is just this little kink, and 
to get over this hump, well ... suppose that Joshua is right about 
steam and mist, and Rossi knows it, but allows the deceptive 
appearance to be maintained. Suppose that the story of the heated 
factory for so long is a lie, "but it won't matter once we have that 
Defkalion plant going."


I know of only one possible fact that would lead to a possibility of 
criminal fraud, though there might be more: that would be whatever 
representations might have been made to Ampenergo, which has 
apparently actually made a payment. Defkalion, probably not, from 
what's been said. All the mouth flapping to the media means nothing. 
It's worth what was paid for it, in a sense.


And, remember, if this is real, Rossi deserves fabulous wealth.

Wrong. I have specified the experiment that would be convincing of 
excess heat. I don't think there is an experiment that would 
convince some CF advocates that they are wrong.


Joshua's world view divides people up into two camps. The properly 
skeptical, which is the people of solid knowledge and understanding, 
i.e., him and people like him, and the gullible, who believe what 
they want to beleive and who cannot be moved.


In reality, almost all people are in the second camp, especially 
including Joshua, at least with respect to some things. Scientists, 
real ones, are trained away from this, but the training is not 
perfect. The habit lingers, and it linger more with some than with others.


I cannot speak for others, but am I a "cold fusion advocate"? 
Personally, I wonder what that would mean. I was a Wikipedia editor, 
skeptical on cold

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Joshua

Please answer the message re our Protocol. Let's
focus on future- we are not historians and cannot change the Past.

Peter

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
>  wrote:
>
>  Cude>>Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them.
>
>
> Lomax> Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what
> Cude claimed, using "his own designates."
>
>
> OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly
> weakened if I make the same claim using "vetted observers" or something like
> that.
>
>
> > It is accepting the designates of someone else. Sure, Rossi could
> possibly somehow figure out that these people would somehow be gullible.
> However, consider who they were. A physicist sitting on the Nobel committee.
> An official of the Swedish Skeptics Society. If Rossi were not confident of
> his demonstrations, do you think he'd approve those two? Indeed, almost
> certainly, he'd reject Essen, at least.
>
>
> First, I'm not interested in second-guessing. I'm interested in evidence,
> and if it has to be second-hand, then it should come from someone who is
> clearly on record as a skeptic of CF. And preferably from several such
> people in contexts they control, without restriction on the measurements
> they make, short of opening the black box. In spite of Essen's associations,
> he had publicly expressed sympathy for Rossi. He was not skeptical.
>
>
> Secondly, this sort of argument might become relevant in future
> demonstrations (or with respect to Levi in the secret experiment), but it's
> not in the January or in the Swede demos, because even the evidence they
> reported does not support excess heat in my estimation. They arrived at
> different conclusions largely because they assumed the steam was dry. They
> however gave no evidence that it was, and in the Lewan and January
> experiments, the evidence strongly suggests it was very wet.
>
>
> > What Cude is doing is demonstrating how, given a held belief, one can
> create endless suspicion and doubt, and there is no end to this.
>
>
> Not true. The demonstrations are simply very poorly done. Rossi appears to
> have discovered that when the water in a conduit reaches boiling, it starts
> spewing out as a mist, which people can be persuaded is dry steam, and
> voila, he gets a factor of 6. Then a few other discrepancies with flow rates
> and using thermal mass to underestimate power, and he can get an even bigger
> apparent gain.
>
>
> Most of these objections can be avoided. And I've described ways. The
> problem is that his later demos were no better than the January demo.
>
>
> > None, beyond massive fully independent confirmation,
>
>
> Or, as I've argued, fully visible.
>
>
> > Now, I've corresponded with scientists at Wikipedia who were actually
> skeptical but who did not want to be known as even thinking that cold fusion
> might be real, or as willing to look at evidence, they were afraid for their
> careers.
>
>
> I agree, this is a problem. Many would simply dismiss the idea and not want
> to waste their time. So yes, finding credible experts is a problem. Sending
> ecats out under NDAs would be easier, but also not likely to happen.
>
>
> That's why I'm fixated on a completely visual demonstration. Boiling 1000 L
> of water in the middle of an open field with nothing but an ecat would
> attract attention. The thing about this revolutionary claim is that a visual
> demonstration is possible. Why not give one.
>
>
> > Were they fooled? Maybe. Actually, reading Essen and Kullander, they are
> pretty careful. They've described appearance, and have not claimed reality.
> But, *still*, we have anonymous pseudoskeptics like Cude claiming
> gullibility and even possible collusion.
>
>
> On the crucial question of dry steam, they claimed it was dry based on two
> visual inspections and measurements of relative humidity. That claim is not
> believable, and I don't care what that says about Essen and Kullander. The
> dry steam makes a 6-fold difference in energy; how can they be so sloppy
> about determining it? On the other hand, the temperature is not expected to
> change during that 6-fold increase in power, and yet they measure it every
> few seconds. That's just a bad experiment.
>
>
>
> > There are two things to keep in mind about Cude. First of all, he's
> obviously certain about what is not possible, which is not a scientific
> position, it's a religious belief.
>
>
> Wrong. I have specified the experiment that would be convincing of excess
> heat. I don't think there is an experiment that would convince some CF
> advocates that they are wrong.
>
>
> > Well, let's put it this way: they were inadequate as proof.
>
>
> Right,
>
>
> > And from what I can tell, that's exactly what Rossi wants at this time.
>
>
> Fine. But I if even Rossi agrees that his demos don't give evidence of
> excess heat, why exactly should I think there is excess heat?
>
>
> > Fraud? Maybe

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
 wrote:

Cude>>Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them.


Lomax> Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what
Cude claimed, using "his own designates."


OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly
weakened if I make the same claim using "vetted observers" or something like
that.


> It is accepting the designates of someone else. Sure, Rossi could possibly
somehow figure out that these people would somehow be gullible. However,
consider who they were. A physicist sitting on the Nobel committee. An
official of the Swedish Skeptics Society. If Rossi were not confident of his
demonstrations, do you think he'd approve those two? Indeed, almost
certainly, he'd reject Essen, at least.


First, I'm not interested in second-guessing. I'm interested in evidence,
and if it has to be second-hand, then it should come from someone who is
clearly on record as a skeptic of CF. And preferably from several such
people in contexts they control, without restriction on the measurements
they make, short of opening the black box. In spite of Essen's associations,
he had publicly expressed sympathy for Rossi. He was not skeptical.


Secondly, this sort of argument might become relevant in future
demonstrations (or with respect to Levi in the secret experiment), but it's
not in the January or in the Swede demos, because even the evidence they
reported does not support excess heat in my estimation. They arrived at
different conclusions largely because they assumed the steam was dry. They
however gave no evidence that it was, and in the Lewan and January
experiments, the evidence strongly suggests it was very wet.


> What Cude is doing is demonstrating how, given a held belief, one can
create endless suspicion and doubt, and there is no end to this.


Not true. The demonstrations are simply very poorly done. Rossi appears to
have discovered that when the water in a conduit reaches boiling, it starts
spewing out as a mist, which people can be persuaded is dry steam, and
voila, he gets a factor of 6. Then a few other discrepancies with flow rates
and using thermal mass to underestimate power, and he can get an even bigger
apparent gain.


Most of these objections can be avoided. And I've described ways. The
problem is that his later demos were no better than the January demo.


> None, beyond massive fully independent confirmation,


Or, as I've argued, fully visible.


> Now, I've corresponded with scientists at Wikipedia who were actually
skeptical but who did not want to be known as even thinking that cold fusion
might be real, or as willing to look at evidence, they were afraid for their
careers.


I agree, this is a problem. Many would simply dismiss the idea and not want
to waste their time. So yes, finding credible experts is a problem. Sending
ecats out under NDAs would be easier, but also not likely to happen.


That's why I'm fixated on a completely visual demonstration. Boiling 1000 L
of water in the middle of an open field with nothing but an ecat would
attract attention. The thing about this revolutionary claim is that a visual
demonstration is possible. Why not give one.


> Were they fooled? Maybe. Actually, reading Essen and Kullander, they are
pretty careful. They've described appearance, and have not claimed reality.
But, *still*, we have anonymous pseudoskeptics like Cude claiming
gullibility and even possible collusion.


On the crucial question of dry steam, they claimed it was dry based on two
visual inspections and measurements of relative humidity. That claim is not
believable, and I don't care what that says about Essen and Kullander. The
dry steam makes a 6-fold difference in energy; how can they be so sloppy
about determining it? On the other hand, the temperature is not expected to
change during that 6-fold increase in power, and yet they measure it every
few seconds. That's just a bad experiment.



> There are two things to keep in mind about Cude. First of all, he's
obviously certain about what is not possible, which is not a scientific
position, it's a religious belief.


Wrong. I have specified the experiment that would be convincing of excess
heat. I don't think there is an experiment that would convince some CF
advocates that they are wrong.


> Well, let's put it this way: they were inadequate as proof.


Right,


> And from what I can tell, that's exactly what Rossi wants at this time.


Fine. But I if even Rossi agrees that his demos don't give evidence of
excess heat, why exactly should I think there is excess heat?


> Fraud? Maybe. It's looking really unlikely to me, but "really unlikely" is
not "impossible." What I know is that LENR is possible, that's not in
question,


Hmm. I thought you said belief like this is not a scientific position. It's
religious. A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black.


>> No. He talked to them. He read their interviews, and what they wrote. He
probably got the sense 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:33 PM 6/1/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
(a comment that is diagnostic as to his condition and extreme bias.)

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman 
Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:


Cude>> ... as long as Rossi uses his own 
designates to report measurements, he will not 
be taken seriously. As soon as it would be 
visual and obvious so anyone can see it, he would be rich and famous.



Lomax> Cude has repeated this meme, it should be 
answered. Rossi did not pick the Swedish 
scientists who observed, Mats Lewan did.



Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them.


Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was 
not simply what Cude claimed, using "his own 
designates." It is accepting the designates of 
someone else. Sure, Rossi could possibly somehow 
figure out that these people would somehow be 
gullible. However, consider who they were. A 
physicist sitting on the Nobel committee. An 
official of the Swedish Skeptics Society. If 
Rossi were not confident of his demonstrations, 
do you think he'd approve those two? Indeed, 
almost certainly, he'd reject Essen, at least.


What Cude is doing is demonstrating how, given a 
held belief, one can create endless suspicion and 
doubt, and there is no end to this. None, beyond 
massive fully independent confirmation, which 
isn't going to happen unless Rossi runs into 
trouble delivering. Which could happen regardless of reality/fraud, etc.


Flipping to the opposite extreme, pure credulity, 
would be no better, by the way.


> And he seems to have accepted any reputable 
physicist willing to look at the work.



So far, that would be 3.


Out of a number he asked. Now, I've corresponded 
with scientists at Wikipedia who were actually 
skeptical but who did not want to be known as 
even thinking that cold fusion might be real, or 
as willing to look at evidence, they were afraid for their careers.


A physicist who is asked might well think, "What 
if this is a really sophisticated fraud, and I 
look at it and I can't see how it's done? I could 
look, later, like a complete fool. This is a 
no-win situation, no, I won't do it. I gain 
nothing here but trouble." It takes quite a bit 
of courage to do what Essen and Kullander did, just to be willing to look.


Were they fooled? Maybe. Actually, reading Essen 
and Kullander, they are pretty careful. They've 
described appearance, and have not claimed 
reality. But, *still*, we have anonymous 
pseudoskeptics like Cude claiming gullibility and even possible collusion.


There are two things to keep in mind about Cude. 
First of all, he's obviously certain about what 
is not possible, which is not a scientific 
position, it's a religious belief. Secondly, he 
is anonymous, and has no responsibility for what 
he says, no reputation to uphold or protect, 
nothing but an anonymous user name. Unlike 
Kullander and Cude and Lewan and Levi and, indeed, Rossi.


His public demo was invitation only. He has 
never made a public invitation to anyone who 
wants to make direct measurements on the 
experiment. The kind that would be required to 
verify his claims. Because reported measurements 
to date (except maybe the secret ones) do not verify his claims.


Well, let's put it this way: they were inadequate 
as proof. And from what I can tell, that's 
exactly what Rossi wants at this time. He wanted 
to make a demo, for reasons others have explored, 
but he didn't want to make it so bulletproof that 
everyone would fall down, and big money would 
start funding competition. He hit a compromise 
between his need for secrecy, for commercial 
reasons, and his desire to publicise, perhaps to please Focardi.


Fraud? Maybe. It's looking really unlikely to me, 
but "really unlikely" is not "impossible." What I 
know is that LENR is possible, that's not in 
question, and Cude could not get his 
protestations on this point published under peer 
review, anywhere. They are pure political polemic 
disguised as scientific skepticism.


> Given their reputations, if Rossi were 
inclined to reject anyone who would not be 
gullible, he'd not have allowed them to 
observe. In order to maintain the fraud 
hypothesis here, I'd have to assume that Rossi 
paid off Lewan and the other Swedes.


No. He talked to them. He read their interviews, 
and what they wrote. He probably got the sense 
that they were prepared to believe that the 
output flow of mist and steam was pure vapour. 
He might have gotten a gentleman's agreement 
that they would accept the experimental setup as 
it was, and simply read the meters.


Basically, Cude can speculate and speculate and 
create whatever story out of these speculations 
he wants. Here, at least, he's writing 
"probably," though there is nothing behind that 
"probable" but Cude's conviction that this thing 
is impossible. If what is apparent is impossible, 
then the appearance *must* be wrong. And this 
logic can be used to reject *any* evidence that would counter the held belief

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

Cude>> ... as long as Rossi uses his own designates to report measurements,
he will not be taken seriously. As soon as it would be visual and obvious so
anyone can see it, he would be rich and famous.


Lomax> Cude has repeated this meme, it should be answered. Rossi did not
pick the Swedish scientists who observed, Mats Lewan did.


Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them.



> And he seems to have accepted any reputable physicist willing to look at
the work.


So far, that would be 3.


His public demo was invitation only. He has never made a public invitation
to anyone who wants to make direct measurements on the experiment. The kind
that would be required to verify his claims. Because reported measurements
to date (except maybe the secret ones) do not verify his claims.



> Given their reputations, if Rossi were inclined to reject anyone who would
not be gullible, he'd not have allowed them to observe. In order to maintain
the fraud hypothesis here, I'd have to assume that Rossi paid off Lewan and
the other Swedes.


No. He talked to them. He read their interviews, and what they wrote. He
probably got the sense that they were prepared to believe that the output
flow of mist and steam was pure vapour. He might have gotten a gentleman's
agreement that they would accept the experimental setup as it was, and
simply read the meters.


When I asked Lewan in the comments on his blog why he hadn't made more
penetrating investigations, this was his response:


"The reason for the set-up is of course partly limited by *what Rossi lets
us prepare,* but it's also of practical reasons: I don't have the E-cat in
my own laboratory and have no possibility to prepare a thorough set-up of my
own wish. Furthermore there's a good reason not to change an existing set-up
as this probably creates new situations that have to be dealt with in follow
up tests. I actually only planned one test but postponed my return to Sweden
to make a second as I had some things I wanted to check better, as the steam
flow. If I had changed the set-up I probably would have had to do three or
four tests to be satisfied (and to satisfy all readers...). *Try to imagine
coming to a lab which is not yours*, only having a couple of hours to check
a thing that most people don't believe in…"


Rossi is no doubt good at manipulating and reading people, and knowing who
will be bold enough to insist on this measurement or that change. Those
Swedes all seem pretty mild-mannered.


Also note that an early plan to allow the Swedes to test the device in their
own labs was scrapped until further notice.



> As to visual and obvious, no, it would not be "as soon as." There is a
mechanism of fame, and it takes time, sometimes. Media ignorance of the
Rossi story is puzzling, but this happens. Consider the Wright brothers.


Consider Pons & Fleischman. It was overnight. The Wright Brothers were very
secretive, avoiding the press and others, limiting the photographs, until
they had an offer on the table. But after the first *obvious* public
demonstrations in 1908, "the Wright brothers catapulted to world fame
overnight". The demonstration did not rely on experts' testimonies, or
invitee's accounts. Anyone who wanted could witness it with their own eyes.


If Rossi wants to be secretive, that's fine. But if he makes an obvious
public demonstration where there is no input energy, and no doubt about
energy densities higher than chemical, I expect overnight fame. Just like
the Wright brothers.


> There isn't any doubt that this is highly newsworthy at this time,


You mean you have no doubt. Obviously, if there were *no* doubt, it would in
the news. It's not as if the major media don't have access to the internet.


> it's either the energy development of the century, or the most brazen
fraud to hit with respect to energy production. This will be noticed by
history regardless, this is not one of a long line of similar frauds.


I don't see it that way at all. It's either true or false, yes. But there
are many ways it can be false, and I wouldn't even rule out self-deception
on Rossi's part. Why or how it's false doesn't matter. Without evidence, we
have no reason to believe it's true.


But if it is fraud, I don't see it as particularly different from previous
frauds, particularly Mills (which might also be self-deception).



> Cude comments, generally, as if LENR itself is not believable. Yet, I
noticed this from Wikipedia yesterday:


> Norman D. Cook (Oxford University, England), "Computing Nuclear Properties
in the fcc Model.", Computers in Physics, Mar/Apr 1989, pages 73-77. […] on
theoretical grounds alone, it would be quite premature to dismiss cold
fusion as theoretically unlikely."


> In 2010, Cook revised his previous work on nuclear models:


> How about a recent textbook, Models of the Atomic Nucleus, by Norman D.
Cook, Springer, 2010 (Second edition), which has a newly added chapter on
LENR? […] glib di