On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> We are taking about two different phenomenon of nature. Trying to use the
> same concepts and words to describe both results in confusion. Those of us
> who have studied cold fusion for the last 23 years have a definition of CF
> that is not
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> Anyway the Farnsworth Fusor is a fusion reactor that many high school level
> students have built, including Conrad.
>
> It involves adding electrical energy in order to achieve LENR reactions.
> Sound familiar, Joshua?
You missed the poi
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Put yourself in the shoes o
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing
> to discuss the issues.
>
I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind
of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to respond to ever
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
>
The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any
alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to
explain the thermodynamics of a pow
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> So, do you need help with that spice model?
>
You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
believers insist on an explanation of how deception mig
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:36 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> This is a good start Josh. I think I can explain that to you since you
> seem to be a pretty sharp guy.
>
Thank you Mr Roberson for that kind compliment.
Unfortunately it also takes an explanation that is realistic and a sharp
guy to e
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth
> construct a similar model and prove me wrong.
>
I never made any claims about dc rectification. I said that the
experimental design leaves opportunities for decepti
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Model 1 appears to be more in line with what I suspect is happening
> except for the explanation of the lack of external heat for control issue.
> You need to consider that the peak heat power being generated inside the
> core i
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Eric,
>
> The resistive heating requirement is to be able to reverse the
> temperature excursion at the proper time by removing the extra input.
> Constant heat input will result in the destruction of the device when
> useful output power
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> There is a third possibility as well. The reaction is localized, and it
> depends upon an elevated temperature to kick off. But the local region is
> destroyed by the reaction, so you have apply heat once more to initiate the
> reaction in ot
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already
>> makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion.
>>
>
> I passed over t
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> No, you don't. Plenty of ICEs (outboards, motorcycles) run without
>> batteries. Car engines would run without batteries too, unless they use
>> some kind of
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>
>> But I think you misunderstood. I was not referring to new science
>> theories there. I was saying that it's common sense that if Rossi
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> **
>
> Yes it was a poor analogy, but so what? Cude’s analysis is wrong no matter
> how much he obfuscates and by jumping on a poor analogy – he does not gain
> credibility.
>
> **
>
Which analogy is that? I was suggesting there was no
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> Josh, once you understand how the ECAT uses heat for control you will
> realize that the heat can not be applied continuously.
Well, you're gonna have to explain it if you expect me to understand it.
And then you're gonna have to explain
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Maybe we are making headway in this discussion. Can I assume that you are
> now saying that the hot cat can actually produce heat by some unknown
> process? So far it is not clear that you accept this premise.
>
>
For heaven's sake. You
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> I am attempting to keep you form getting banned since I want to use you to
> clear up a number of issues. It is hoped that you will go back to the
> other skeptics and then set them straight.
>
>
>
Garbage. You don't need anyone else to
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> No problem, I will meet you here in a couple of years and we can compare
> notes.
>
Good, but I was hoping you'd be able to tell us now if you might get a
little skeptical if the hot cat has a similar fate that the steam cat has
seen in t
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:57 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> There is a wealth of information contained within the shape of the output
> temperature curve associated with operation of the ECAT.
>
That's total speculative and nonsensical over-interpretation.
It's based in the first place on the a
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:07 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> Cude and the others of this group can not accept that LENR is anything
> except for a scam.
>
Not true in my case. I think most of LENR research is not a scam; it is
probably just pathological science. But I don't even rule it out
compl
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> The group at moletrap has a hobby of trying to debunk anything that they
> do not understand. You should have realized by now that these clowns can
> not admit when they are shown in error to keep up appearances of
> understanding these s
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> Applying more heat to make it stop is not what he does. He ceases to
> apply the excess drive heat to make it stop. This is 180 degrees
> different. The extra drive power to the resistors is added to the internal
> power during the time
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> The effects of heat and the use of heat to control chemical and nuclear
> reactions is well established.
>
>
>
Perhaps, but elsewhere I asked for an example where the addition of heat is
used to control a positive thermal feedback system,
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
> If you genuinely want an explanation of how the eCAT is positive feedback,
> which Dave is trying to do, backed up by his model, then it requires
> following a line of reasoning.
>
Wrong discussion. The question of COP > 1 here arose in t
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> I admit that I do not believe that the magnetic field is important in this
> case.
>
I am very pleased to see that some progress is being made.
> It is not too close to zero with this particular geometry
Well, the particular geometry
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> No reason for any of your issues is given except that there is no reason
> that you are aware of to do what makes sense to most other engineers and
> scientists on the list.
>
3-phase is not needed. He ran higher power steam cats witho
iginal Message-
> From: Joshua Cude
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:23 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
> test
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Josh, your entire theory wi
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>
>> Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and
>> he is as bad as Rossi. And he brought most of the instruments.
>>
>
> I see. And these other co-authors are so stupid they do not even not
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Nothing in the recent test was brought by Rossi. This test was a hands-off
> "black box" test, exactly what the skeptics have been demanding. It seems
> you will not take "yes" for an answer.
>
>
>
So much nonsense. The test was running wh
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
> Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very
> little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have
> had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi.
>
>
And it had the
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> WHY are you so certain that wattmeters do not work?!?
>
You know that's not the objection.
> There is no chance Rossi can fool one, and if the people doing the test
have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator.
Would
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> If it is real it is the most important advance in technology since the
> discovery of fire. If the scientific community is convinced it is real,
> every industrial corporation and university will be hard at work on this.
> ~$100 million per
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> If the device cannot self-power, it is still valuable with a lower COP,
> the proverbial hot water or space heater -
>
A COP of 3 is not useful if the electricity was made with fossil fuels at
an efficiency of 1/3. That's a wash.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> Dr. Richard L. Garwin is alive and well and will likely live to have his
> tea.
>
>
If you believe Rothwell and Roberson, skeptics will never have to concede,
because no application of cold fusion is obvious enough to make them
believe it.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> There was a time when this field desperately needed a standalone self
> powered reactor to prove the reaction is real. That is because absolute
> power was low, ranging from 5 to 100 W. However, now that Rossi has
> developed high-powered re
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>
>>
>>
> Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy
> without stopping would be pretty damn convincing.
>
>
>
Nice to see you can envision a demo that would convince skeptics.
Unfortunately the actual demos don't ever get
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>
> The best proof is one that has the least possibility of error.
>
Or the least possibility of error that favors the ecat, or the least
possibility of tampering. An isolated ecat eliminates input tampering. A
heated tank of water eliminat
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do
> some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not
> what we would wish for in an ideal universe.[...]
>
> Obviously with more engineering R&D a s
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM, DJ Cravens wrote:
> They only need to make their sponsors happy not Crude. I hope the best
> for them.
>
>
Hey, if you're referring to me, I'm with you all the way on the
self-sustaining water-tank heating demo. So the insult is particularly
hurtful.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> It will take more than just a generator and an extension cord to close the
> loop. Some form of energy storage will be required to do the job.
>
>
>
To close the loop with electricity, probably yes. But if you used
controlled cooling, yo
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> I have thought about that. During the initial warm up phase you would get
> an interesting result. After that, when it reaches a steady state, you
> would maintain the entire body of water at a certain temperature for weeks.
> The body (th
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and
> less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually
> does go wrong with it for the first several weeks.
>
>
>
It is both more believable, wh
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
>
>> I still think that a standalone unplugged demo is the best approach - not
>> high wattage and fancy instruments and lots of wires and computer programs.
>>
>
> That would be nice, but evidently that would probably cause the reactor to
>
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with.
>
>
>
That's true for true believers. For everyone else the usual saying
represents common sense, and the opinion of great thinkers from Pascal
through Sagan. I see
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
> Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the
> propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made
> irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other
> words, even with mor
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say:
>
> 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars.
>
True. But not more than 10k for an off-the-shelf unit. That sounds like a
bargain for what Rossi's doi
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> The ECAT will need adjustment depending upon the environment into which it
> operates. This is what should be expected.
>
>
>
Exactly, and controlled cooling provides a way to adjust it. Sitting in the
open air does not.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> I don't think it would be quite so easy for Rossi to perform the
> experiment that you propose.
>
It's amazing the excuses true believers contrive to explain why inferior
experiments were used. If the thing is to be useful, it s
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> They used perfectly normal calorimetry.
>
Normal to me means common. But I have not seen calorimetry performed with
IR thermometry. Do you have some references for where it has been used?
> There is not the slightest chance output is
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> OK, I'll ask the question a different way:
>
> Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the
> researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
>
>
>
In the December run, the experiment was already running
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with
> some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate
> 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would
> cost "a couple
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> the analogy only goes so far, in that it is harder in Rossi's case to
> recapture the heat and channel it back into the secondary source.
>
>
But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already
makes heat, it should self-
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> He said you need a battery for an internal combustion engine, and so that
>> means it's not self-sustaining. That was what I responded to.
>>
>
> My p
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
>
> Levi didn't provide pictures of the resistors, but it's reasonable to
> assume that they had the same structure as showed by Penon.
> http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf
>
> The resistors are laid ins
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Ruby wrote:
>
>
> How did quantum mechanics come about?
>
> Experimental phenomenon occurred in blackbody radiation that could not be
> explained by the conventional physical theories of the day.
>
>
Right, but all the anomalies that led to QM were robust, reprod
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:50 PM, John Berry wrote:
> There is one very very simple truth.
>
> Many will never believe right up until a technology is widely available.
>
>
If so, I think it will be a first. I am not aware of a phenomenon that was
widely rejected by the mainstream until a successf
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Let me quote the specific text from Cude that I discussed:
>
> "You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
> already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
> believers insist on an explanation of
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> LENR complies with all know physical laws. The problem is that few
> scientists have a background in this new branch of science.
>
You don't know what you're talking about. LENR is contrary to predictions
based on a century of copious, reproduc
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> The Elforsk web page announcement is better than a signed statement, in
> my opinion. So was EPRI's statement. A conclusion issued by an organization
> carries more weight than statement signed by one EE.
>
> Along the same lines, when th
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> Mark, you quoted Siegel as saying that CF violated physics because it did
> not act like hot fusion. Carat simply pointed out that CF was not like hot
> fusion and this comparison was not valid. She simply made a statement of
> belief, not a
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mark Gibbs wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>
>> Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's
>> law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to
>> argue that Carat's dismissal of conventional physics as
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wants you
>> to measure are already exposed. Clever, huh.
>>
>
> Too clever by half. This would not begin to fool any scient
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> Lets start with one of your choice regarding the many heat generation
> issues. How about how a small amount of heat can control a much larger
> amount?
>
I agree this is possible under certain circumstances. But I don't see it in
the h
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, John Berry wrote:
> If he does not know such a simple thing, I think he can be safely ignored
No one's holding a gun to your head.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:52 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> I suggest that you study the magnetic fields associated with solenoids
> Josh. Obviously you must not realize that they have an external field much
> like a bar magnet. This is simple for you to study and realize your
> mistake.
>
>
OK. I
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:48 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> Every one of the points you make are pure speculation. There is
> absolutely no evidence that Rossi is using 3 phase power to conduct any
> scam.
Right but all the excuses for why he might need them are pure speculation,
and far far less
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> Josh, your entire theory will be shot if you acknowledge that the COP is
> greater than 1. Are you now ready to accept this condition?
>
>
>
No. The only thing you seem to be able to do is miss the point.
The claimed COP is 3. That means
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Berke Durak wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Joshua Cude
> wrote:
>
> > Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with
> the
> > axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near zer
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> And I'm not convinced those guys stripped any wires.
>>
>
> How does one measure voltage without stripping wires?
>
Watch the cheese video. The ends of the wires that the magician wan
remove yourself from this discussion since
> that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joshua Cude
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique o
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>
> What is the best thing about this new demonstration that it excludes
> definitely steam based tricks from the possible repertoire. So from the
> beginning it was all about the feeding extra input power via hidden wires.
> Therefore most
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>
>
> Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
> reputations on the line.
>
I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim ignorance. In fact
their ignorance is the most plausible explanation.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Even the people here such as Cude cannot come up with anything. They are
> scraping the bottom of the barrel when they say that "three-phase
> electricity is difficult to measure" or "there might be a hidden wire under
> the insulation,"
nt to you and any discussion is a waste of time.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On May 31, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Of course it is not the exact same. Positive heat feedback is what we
>> are mainly
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:32 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> With that in mind, please submit for discussion your main reason for
> discounting my explanation so that it can be properly addressed and
> everyone who is following this concept can draw their own conclusions. It
> is my sincere wish
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:41 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> Josh, please refrain from insults.
>
>
>
Please refrain from telling me what to refrain from.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:37 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> It is great to see that we are in such close agreement. Let's handle the
> issues related to positive feedback as I requested and you will improve
> your understanding.
I thought you were keeping an open mind, not a patronizing one that
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> Of course it is not the exact same. Positive heat feedback is what we are
> mainly interested in. You know that, so why bring up the obvious
> differences?
Because it's not positive heat feedback.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.
>
Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they excluded
it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they say
without scrutiny, then why bother reading the pa
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> I do not understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Rossi
> was present? Or that that he interfered with the experiment?
>
> I do not think that Levi or his co-authors has said that Rossi was absent.
> Only that he played no r
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:32 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
> Josh:
>
> ** **
>
> Eric’s comment about not needing a battery to keep spark plugs going was
> referring to a DIESEL engine, and diesels don’t have spark plugs.
>
He said you need a battery for an internal combustion engine, and so tha
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude
> wrote:
>
> > I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going
> to
> > care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> There are advantages to using a three phase power input that have been
> pointed out.
>
For this application, the disadvantages are greater.
> Measurements of 3 phase systems are done every day so this is not
> important.
>
>
Of cours
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> My guess is that he is designing for industrial applications.
>
It's not gonna be useful for industrial purposes with a COP of 3; remember
the electricity was made with an efficiency of 1/3. It's gonna have to be
self-sustaining. I hardly
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
>
>
> OK -- in fig 6 (Dec) they show a blue-and-yellow CONTROL box and three
> triacs.
>
> They don't have a picture for March, so we don't know if it includes the
> functionality of the blue-and-yellow box or just replaces the triac.
>
> The
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> I’m a Professor Ameritus in Electrical Engineering ... Everything I read
>> in the 29 page report, and following challenges as answered by the authors,
>> seems extremely convincing. Al
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> I think this is more about who is the gatekeeper to the ideology and
> business of science rather than any exercise in ethics.
>
> The gatekeeper class resents this clique of stiff necked maverick
> scientists who have the temerity to violate
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> Yes, and only in a diesel engine do you not need a battery to keep spark
> plugs going. Demanding a self-sustaining device is like demanding a diesel
> engine. ICEs were first developed in the 1860s, and the diesel engine was
> invented in
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> . But my sense tells me that a significant number of scientists are
> starting to take genuine interest and that they will stay tuned for further
> details.
>
Read the cold fusion forums for the last 24 years. This has always been
someone'
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> If someone is looking for an analogy they could look at the behavior of a
> power transistor mounted on a heat sink. For this exercise assume that the
> collector is directly connected to a power source. Apply enough base drive
> to obtai
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Bill Beaty has an excellent quote on this subject, here:
>
> http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html
>
> "Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered
> impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Josh, what is common sense now becomes ancient history when the newest
> theories come out.
>
Yes, I know that happens sometimes. And sometimes things that are common
sense remain common sense.
But I think you misunderstood. I was not re
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years
> without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical point
> at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree of thermal
> contact between
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> As dave explains it makes sense if the energy input provides cooling power.
>
>
>
Exactly. The whole thing is nuts. If it really needed to be regulated, it
would make sense to regulate with temperature controlled cooling.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> If we are going to do analogies, a more useful one would be to compare the
> Rossi reactor to an internal combustion engine ICE. With an ICE you have to
> apply the spark periodically to small portions of the fuel to trigger the
> reaction.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> There seems to be a serious hangup over why a heat generating device needs
> some form of heating input to sustain itself. The skeptics can not seem to
> get their arms around this issue so I will make another short attempt to
> explain wh
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the
>> explosion sustains itself.
>>
>>
>> A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it.
>>
&
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have no
>> problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it&#
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> > From: "Joshua Cude"
> > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:44:00 AM
>
> >> You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase.
> >
> > Right, but I thought the ecat was supposed to provi
1 - 100 of 939 matches
Mail list logo
