On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> Do you expect water droplets above 100C? This is like expecting
> microscopic ice to not immediately melt above 0C.
>
> You don't expect water droplets above the boiling point. The temperature of
the mixture of steam and droplets will be *at*
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
> Abd wrote:
> "Basically, the device does some math for you, based on certain
> assumptions. Unfortunately, the
> assumptions are the very issue here!"
>
> I don't' think that's correct... Not assumptions.
> The instrument does calculations ba
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
>
> Yes, as I've been trying to explain all along, once you get to 100%RH, all
> remaining water will be
> in the form of liquid water because at the given temperature and pressure
> it is now saturated and
> can no longer support further water
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Finlay MacNab wrote:
> If the relative humidity sensor measures capacitance then the dielectric
> constant of steam and the dielectric constant of steam plus water would be
> very different and yield very different readings.
>
>From what I found, it is not the
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> At 06:56 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <> a...@lomaxdesign.com>a**b...@lomaxdesign.com > wrote:
>>
>> It would be possible,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> At 03:21 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>
>> This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior:
>>
>>
>> What is your point? That thing produces steam at several times the rat
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> So, what specifically do you think that g/kg means in the context of a
>> 2-phase mixture of steam and water?
>>
>> What do you use for the denominator to calculate the total mass o
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
> **
> Joshua:
>
> STOP THINKING ABOUT VOLUME! Yes, you're right in that the extreme volume
> change complicates the measurements, and thats why I and others including
> Krivit, are focused on MASS. Think in terms of mass. That eliminates th
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> If the meter is giving mass per unit volume of the output, you need to
>> know the *volume* of the output to get the mass of the steam.
>>
>
> Ah. Here is what you overlooked. It also says
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
>
> It would be possible, just from the experiments performed, to determine if
>> the RH probe were of any use. If the RH readings were *monitored* on a
>> continuos basis, like the temperature, and *reported*, we could see if the
>> re
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> **
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Nope. All you have to know is how dry the steam is, what the temperature
>> is, and what the total mass of the steam is. You can derive the steam flow
>> rate from that.
>>
>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> **
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> If they did not measure the weight of the water, you would be right. The
>> RH meter reading alone is not sufficient.
>>
>
> The RH meter reading is not enough even with the i
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Even if it gave the mass of water vapor per unit volume of steam, you'd
>> need to know the volume to get the mass. For that you'd need a flowmeter.
>> But if you had a flowmeter to mea
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
>
> THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT
> FROM THE MASS OF WATER
> GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING
> OUT!!
>
> No. It determines the mass of water vapor per unit volume
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jeff Driscoll wrote:
>
>> no it doesn't give the mass of water as vapor because it only works
>> for measuring the mass of water of vapor in AIR.
>> NOT in a mixture of vapor and microscopic water DROPLETS
>>
>
> All air has microscopic water
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jeff Driscoll wrote:
>
>
>> yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality.
>> Galantini used the wrong instrument
>>
>
> So you say, but Galantini and the manufacturers say differently.
>
The manufacturers do not say differ
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Mark Iverson wrote:
>
> Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not
> measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the
> temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
>
> The instrument DOES provide a (calculated) value for the mass of water
> which is in the form of
> vapor...
No. It certainly doesn't do that. And that means your simple algebra is all
wet.
The device gives the mass of water vapor per uni
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity
> --
> A common misconception
> [...]
> --
>
> Reading this makes me think Galantini used the probe correctly.
>
> Harry
>
>
That probe uses a capacitance measuremen
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Cude>> 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 impr
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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
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 a
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.
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 on
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 hig
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. T
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
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 racin
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
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,
theoreti
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 spec
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 di
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 sai
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 to
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> "Cling to my belief"? What belief?
> I've been pointing out that Rossi has very sound reasons to avoid
convincing many at this point.
You're suggesting Rossi makes his demos deliberately unconvincing. Yet he
does demos.
That's cont
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
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Cude >> I just know I haven't seen any evidence the thing is real.
Lomax> This is typical pseudoskepticism. Instead of "I haven't seen evidence
that convinces me," it's a denial that evidence exists.
I agree that's what I meant. I ha
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
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Cude>> But 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> It is obvious that the publ
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
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> Just to add that atomic bomb is a sadistic example of convincing common
> sense experiment.
>
I was just making the point that a demonstration does not need quantitative
measurement.
Heavier than air flight is probably a better example.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> 1- I for one disagree with any experiment without measurements- perhaps
later if/when the E-cats will
be around in great number. Non negociable issue, i am
a professional engineer nad I respect my profession and myself. Noblesse
oblige- not
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Lomax>>> The world is so complex that math can be useless, unless
simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that
led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was
already a problemati
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Cude>> 1. First and foremost, the device must be completely and obviously
standalone. So, disconnect the hydrogen bottle, and the mains power input.
>> - The hydrogen bottle should be easy
Lomax> Yes. This one is easy. Not so the el
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
>> It occurred to me that the Fukushima disaster occurred partly *because*
it depended on external power for cooling in the event of an unintentional
shut-down. Modern reactors have passive emergency cooling systems that do
not depend on
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> The original question, though, has never been answered with any rigor at
all: if the FPHE effect is not fusion, what is it?
> The chemists say, largely, it's not chemistry, that's impossible, it must
a nuclear reaction.
Largely? N
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Cude>> The evidence for CF and for this heat-helium correlation is pitifully
weak. And the evidence for the quantitative correlation has not been
reproduced under peer-review. That's why a panel of experts in 2004 said
evidence for nucl
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> They asked him to, instead, write a review of the entire field. Storms
(2010) was a solicited review from a major, highly reputable, mainstream
journal, published by the second-largest scientific publisher in the world.
1. If it was
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> The work is being published in mainstream journals, about two papers per
month.
Oh boy. Talk about exaggeration! You really shouldn't write things that
induce people to look into your claims, because invariably the field comes
out
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> As often stated, the principle is obviously false, people state that
fusion cannot take place at these low temperatures. Okay, muon-catalyzed
fusion takes place close to absolute zero. "Oh, that's an exception." If
it's impossible, fo
mainstream science. To any scientist except a small
fringe group of believers. That's to whom.
> Cold fusion researchers have not demonstrated to the satisfaction of an
imaginary, non-existent person called "Joshua Cude," that "cold fusion" is
"real," whateve
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> Joshua- this will need some discussions but I think eventually we can
establish a Perfect Experience Protocol for Indiviual E-Cats- that is
satisfactory both from the points of view of engineering and of the sane
bureaucracy of standardization
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> Dear Joshua,
>
> in case your approach to the New Energy is constructive
> and not destructive would you contribute seriously to:
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html
> ?
>
> what experiment, what
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> But, Joshua, what about Fukashima? Do you think that the reactor there
needed to be "plugged in" -- for safety -- meant that the energy produced
was doubtful?
It occurred to me that the Fukushima disaster occurred partly *because* it
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Mark Iverson wrote:
>Don't you get any enjoyment from creative, out-of-the-box thinking?
You're right. I shouldn't have weighed in on this subject, but I couldn't
resist when you said:
"With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in
atomi
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Lomax>The world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying
assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led to the
conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was already a
problematic as
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Cude>>To the extent they believe cold fusion is real based on existing
measurements, then in the opinion of mainstream science, they are mistaken.
Every last one of them.
Lomax> As Rothwell said. Cude is simply repeating a common myth.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Cude>> To the extent they believe cold fusion is real based on existing
measurements, then in the opinion of mainstream science, they are mistaken.
Every last one of them.
Rothwell> That is incorrect. Mainstream scientists have not published
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> The mainstream started shifting sometime around 2005,
What is your evidence for this? The fact that NW published a few papers on
CF? In 2000 the J of Electroanal. Chem. stopped publishing (positive) papers
on CF. It has not restarted
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Lomax> That work was done before the turn of the century. The source is the
conversion of deuterium to helium. The mechanism for this is unknown, but
the conversion would have a characteristic energy of 23.8 MeV/He-4,
regardless of mecha
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Cude>> You find it so hard to believe that a few hundred cold fusion
researchers can all be wrong, but if cold fusion is real, then far far more
researchers would have to be wrong.
Lomax> This is the core of Cude's religious position:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Cude>> I will assert that tools do not make a carpenter, and that my views
boil down to an assertion that cold fusion researchers are bad carpenters.
Rothwell> For this to be the case, they would all have to be incompetent.
Every last of the
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
> Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and
is supposed to reflect physical reality. My question was about the physical
world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect
sort of expla
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, wrote:
>>Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and
>magnetism experiments.
>...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was
already
evident.
Not really. Electric and magnetic fields in the laboratory do
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I will say, however, that his views seem to boil down to an assertion that
conventional instruments and techniques do not work.
Wrong. I have never asserted that, and I do not believe it. I will assert
that tools do not make a carpenter, an
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, wrote:
> In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 16:08:10 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >What do mean by "we"? It's not from observing e-m waves that we know the
> >fields are perpendicular. It follows from Maxwell's equations, which
> predict
> >the wave
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
>
> With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in
> atomic physics/QM, how come we
> can't explain WHY they're perpendicular! I think any theory should have to
> explain the simple
> observations first before delving do
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
valkonen> in my knowledge Rossi has never had an urge to demonstrate
anything
and convince anybody.
In your knowledge? That's not really very persuasive. He says that, sure, so
that he has an excuse when the demo sucks, as they all have so
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
>
>> No one said the helium is orders of magnitude about the detection limit.
>> That's absurd. If it was, we would probably be able to zero in on the exact
>> process that created it. It is significantly above the detection limit. It
>>
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Heat, it is claimed, can be measured to mW, the helium, it is claimed, is
>>> orders of magnitude above the detection limit, and yet the errors are huge.
>>>
>>
>> Notice that Cude doesn't mention how accurately the helium can be
>> measure
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:22 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> And then you cite how Cude gets the temperature measurements backwards.
>
> Abd, it is my hope that Cude becomes acutely aware of you and your
> obsessive
> analysis of Cude Speak.
>
>
>
Shame
Part 3
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
lomax>>>The original report of neutrons was artifact. The recent reports are
at levels vastly lower, but well above background.
cude>>Presumably you are referring to the CR-39 results, but these have been
observed by one group
Part 2B
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> But, this is the point: Storm's analysis was recently accepted under peer
review.
Storms' analysis is a review of conference proceedings. Big deal.
> There is no contrary analysis in the literature.
There is no confirmi
Part 2A
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> Huizenga was impressed that the helium was within an order of magnitude of
the helium expected if the reaction was deuterium -> helium. Cude is now
completely blase about it. Ho-hum. Just another nutty cold fusion claim
Part 1D
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
cude>> But the best evidence that the thing doesn’t produce excess power is
the fact that it can’t power itself.
lomax> But, apparently, it can.
You mean "allegedly".
> The problem is that controlling it, fully self-power
Part 1C
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
lomax> What Cude is betraying is his own severe bias: [incoherent
psychobabble]
That's your own fervent wish. But really, I'm just pointing out that there
is no evidence for a new energy source. I'd like nothing better than a
Part 1B
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
lomax> We know from Aleklett's previous blog post on this that he personally
knows Kullander, the "person" whom Cude so cavalierly dismisses as if he
were some shill. From his blog:
I said Kullander was on record as being symp
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Part 1A
Cude >>So far, claimed evidence for excess heat in a Rossi apparatus has
been observed directly only by people vetted by Rossi. First Levi, who was
on Rossi’s editorial board, and the recipient of research funding from
Rossi. Th
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This is based on the assumption that the actual operating temperature is
>> indeed
>> 400C @ 15 kW. If it's in fact much less, then 130 k
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Wm. Scott Smith wrote:
> > Bohr "orbit." It takes energy -- a lot of energy, apparently, -- to
> > bring an electron and a proton into close proximity.
>
> Actually it takes the *removal *of lots of energy to bring an electron and
> proton together. it is only o
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, wrote:
>
>
> This is based on the assumption that the actual operating temperature is
> indeed
> 400C @ 15 kW. If it's in fact much less, then 130 kW for a short period may
> not
> be a problem. Perhaps it only gets up to 400C when the output is really
> high?
>
>
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:02 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> In one of my original posts I stated the fact that, in my opinion,
> Rossi's current e-Cat configurations are probably not configured in
> such a manner as to generate steam that is much
In an earlier post svj wrote:
"As best as I can tell, you appear to be transfixed at ground zero,
seemingly
acting as the last remaining sane skeptic in this sorry gullible world, the
one last intelligent, logical, rational, person left who knows better, who
knows he is absolutely certain Rossi's
2011/5/10 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
>
>
> We will all know soon enuf whether Rossi's controversial e-cats
> deliver the bacon, or not.
>
>
Actually, I don't think we (meaning you) will know. Judging from past
practice, Rossi's device is unlikely to come to a definitive end. There will
be tech
In other words, you've got nothin' but vague, unsupported insults.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> You are free to express your opinion on the Rossi's e-Cat matter, and you
> certainly have done that in more than
n Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
> svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me add my two cents:
>>
>
>
> Sorry, it's not worth even that.
>
>
> (I've
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me add my two cents:
>
Sorry, it's not worth even that.
(I've stayed away from this list because its terms of reference clearly
exclude people of my mindset, but this discussion of higher tem
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:53 PM, William Beaty wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> ,in the data by orders of magnitude (10^10 if I remember), from the fact
>> that the highest values came from BARC within weeks of the press conference
>> (for what is
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> If the effect were real, it would not stall at the marginal level.
>
>
> Many cold fusion results are marginal, but others are not. Even in 1989
> there were many dramatic heat events and some
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> This is not a fringe group. [...]
>
> To put it bluntly, who the hell are you to call these people "fringe"? The
> fact that you call distinguished scientists a fringe group does not make
> them a fringe group.
>
>
Obviously, me calling t
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> What I know doesn't matter, but it is very clear that most people who know
>> as much about tritium as your stars, don't believe the measurements, or at
>> least don't believe the
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Most of those things are tools, and I believe in them like I believe in
>> hammers. But no matter how much you believe in hammers, it doesn't mean you
>> can build a house.
>>
>
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
>
> The key that something was really off was, though, that he'd make sweeping
> statements that were clearly false, such as no peer-reviewed confirmation of
> heat/helium after Miles in 1993. I cited the counter-examples.
>
> If those h
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> At 04:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> You are arguing with a straw man, Joshua.
>
You're call yourself a straw man?
It's obvious that "many scientists" do not "accept" cold fusio
> If a device can produce 10 kernels of wheat from one kernel, you only need
>> one kernel to feed the world. Once it gets going, there is no input
>> required.
>>
>
> Sure. Let's look at the analogy. You can produce 10 kernels of wheat from
> one kernel. Easy. Plant it. Does that mean that the wo
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> To summarize Cude's position:
>
> He does not believe in the scientific method, replication, high signal to
> noise ratios, peer review, calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. To be
> exact, he believe that whatever pops into his own mind
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
>
> Any review of an effect that is not trivial to observe will "reiterate the
> evidence for the effect."
I checked the abstract for a review of high temp superconductivity (which
incidentally has 100,000 publications in the last 20 y
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>
> On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
> Promises have been made by Pons & Fleischmann first in 1989 (just watch
> their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the ideal energy source:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> Dear Joshua,
>
> Perhaps "*a possibly flawed demo*" would be more fair
> and more technical.
>
It was flawed in that data to prove the steam was dry was not given, the
pump model was not provided, the hydrogen bottle was left connected, and t
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
> Joshua:
> A few clarifications from you would be helpful...
>
> Jed wrote:
> >>You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people.
>
> To which Joshua stated:
> > Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi.
>
> Where is your ev
801 - 900 of 939 matches
Mail list logo
