On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:38:23AM -0600, Edmund Storms wrote:
Eugen, here is a list of my publications. I wonder why you limit
Thank you, I see I can get some of them online from LENR-CANR, which
is convenient.
youself to peer reviewed publications. I have been working in
In a field as
On May 6, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Murray wrote: Maybe you and Lomax have already long reached an
impasse, talking right past each other?
You are right. We have hashed this over several times, and ceased to
make any progress a long time ago. After all, the discussion is
Well, thanks Joshua Cude -- maybe Lomax will provide a comparable review of
his heat-helium correlation claim -- together, the two contrasting reviews
might attract attention by experts -- historians of science will make
comparisons with similar conundrums, such as the actual identity of dark
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
Were other investigators able to reproduce your results in
experimental setups of their own?
The best illustration of reproducibility between different labs is Fig. 3,
here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
- Jed
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
LENR+ is so 2011. I think the future is in LENR++ or maybe objective LENR.
Nickel and light water are certainly easier to obtain than Pd and heavy water,
but you still have to mine
Not if the active material is a few grams of highly enriched nickel-62 :-)
From: Roarty, Francis X
The funny thing about your comment is that
you just know 30 minutes after someone finally nails the working principle
behind these
Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
The funny thing about your comment is that you just know
30 minutes after someone finally nails the working principle behind these
effects that they really will “Mcgiver” together a working example out of
off the shelf
Joshua Cude states without any basis with or proof from experimentation:
“LENR+ is so 2011. I think the future is in LENR++ or maybe objective LENR.
Nickel and light water are certainly easier to obtain than Pd and heavy
water, but you still have to mine nickel, and refine it. LENR++ uses
.
Fran
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
The funny thing about your comment is that you just know
Again, hardly an attack on the strongest of the arguments of the opposing
proposition.
Please, let's have some intellectual honesty for a change.
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude is right -- today, 24 years after 1989, is there any lab
Beside cold fusion problem I would raise that this claim is incoherent with
the work of Thomas Kuhn on scientifc revolutions.
Howevet the claim is coherent with tha work of Nassim Nicholas Taleb that
explain that history is rewritten so that some members of the mainstream
community get the
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
That's cold fusion's problem: the quality of the evidence is abysmal --
not better than the evidence for bigfoot, alien visits, dowsing,
homeopathy. . .
Incorrect. The quality of evidence is
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Not totally wrong, just wrongly interpreted.
Then you should help the laymen and failed scientists here interpret the
misinterpreted evidentiary record -- specifically, you should focus your
energy on specific
Someone wrote:
Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The
credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis
and Huizenga and others.
Lewis' experiment was positive. He showed that cold fusion probably does
exist. This was some of the best
Joshua, I find your arguments not only logically inconsistent but not
even accurate. First of all, you and many other people made such a
fuss about CF being impossible, that the money required to advance
understanding was denied. OK, we all know that some money was
provided. This amount
My vortex-l posting habits has gone down significantly within the last six
months due to the fact that I need to focus on my own personal research as
compared to constantly getting ensnared in another discussion thread.
(Vortex-l can be so addictive!)
Nevertheless, every now and then,
Joshua Cude wrote:
Poor choice of words on my part. Of course I know that skeptics and
believers disagree about the quality of the evidence . . .
This is not a matter of opinion. The quality of evidence is measured
objectively, based on repeatability and the signal to noise ratio. Anyone
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
What makes you think that? They are certainly not seen as overzealous now,
except by true believers. If it plays out in such a way that there are no
true believers left, there is no reason to think *anyone* will regard
Joshua Cude wrote:
Surely you're aware of the Jones' challenge to Miles' results in Jones
Hansen, Examination of Claims of Miles…, J. Phys. Chem. 95 (1995) 6966.
Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis.
That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison. As
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
It is clear that you're willing to do this -- you just posted a very nice
post addressing points in Jed's reply and raising a number of juicy details.
Nope. He said nothing that skeptics did not say in 1990. Everything they
said then and that Cude
I address this issue in my book, which Joshua obviously has not read.
But you are right, Jed. This issue has been laid to rest so
completely, one has to wonder why it has been brought up now. This is
like someone now arguing for the flat earth concept.
Ed
On May 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Jed
Why now?
Perhaps it was the publication of the photos after this:
Jam
April 30th, 2013 at 5:46
AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802cpage=6#comment-687451
Did you start loading on the truck? Don’t forget to take a few pictures.
Andrea Rossi
May 1st, 2013 at 8:04 AM
Dear Neri
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone wrote:
Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The
credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis
and Huizenga and others.
Lewis' experiment was positive.
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
First of all, you and many other people made such a fuss about CF being
impossible, that the money required to advance understanding was denied.
Poppycock. The argument was that CF was highly unlikely, but in spite of
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
Poor choice of words on my part. Of course I know that skeptics and
believers disagree about the quality of the evidence . . .
This is not a matter of opinion. The quality of evidence is measured
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
The second was that they seemed to have undue confidence in their
knowledge, leaving them vulnerable to overlooking evidence and explaining
it away.
That's always a danger, but funding agencies and journal editors and
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis.
That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison.
It's one thing to say that you don't agree with any of the published
challenges to cold
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
He said nothing that skeptics did not say in 1990.
Please. My main argument is the complete absence of progress in 24 years.
No one argued that in 1990. I refer to your 2001 opinion that the results
fail to stand out,
I do not want to beat this recombination issue to death, but let me mention
one other thing.
With an open cell, you ensure there is no significant recombination with a
variety of methods, such as measuring the gas flow with an inverted test
tube underwater, or with a gas flowmeter. The other
While I agree with Cude about the need for ideas to be challenged and
claims to be questioned, his style is not helpful in clarifying the
issues about CF. Consequently, I for one will not continue the
discussion. I suggest other people consider what happened last time
Vortex was subjected
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion.
Me neither! I promise to shut up.
- Jed
Joshua Cude,
Seems you might end up being the last person standing...
May ask you to offer a few decisive critiques to refute Lomax's claim, much
repeated for a year or longer, that heat and helium are correlated in
standard cold fusion experiments, some years ago -- for instance, have
there
@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
My vortex-l posting habits has gone down significantly within the last six
months due to the fact that I need to focus on my own personal research as
compared to constantly getting ensnared in another discussion thread.
(Vortex-l can be so
Joshua Cude
I wonder if you have been keeping up with the new thinking in LENR.
Specifically, I would like your opinion of the new theories posed by NASA
and Widom-Larsen centered on the polariton.
These theories are more applicable to the Ni/H reactor (LENR+) rather than
the older LENR theories
The recent editorial in Infinite Energy by Hagelstein represents the
incoherent ramblings of a bitter man who is beginning to realize he has
wasted 25 years of his career, but is deathly afraid to admit it. He spends
a lot of time talking about consensus and experiment and evidence and
theory and
Yes Joshua, I know you do not believe CF is real. You have been
consistent in this attitude for years as the evidence kept
accumulating. So, we now have a contest. Either you and other skeptics
are correct or I and other believers in CF are correct. You leave no
middle ground. Nature will
So, we now have a contest.
Not a contest. It's a disagreement. I think CF is almost certainly not
real. You seem certain that it is.
Either you and other skeptics are correct or I and other believers in CF
are correct. You leave no middle ground. Nature will be the judge and the
final
Joshua Cude wrote:
That's cold fusion's problem: the quality of the evidence is abysmal --
not better than the evidence for bigfoot, alien visits, dowsing,
homeopathy. . .
Incorrect. The quality of evidence is excellent. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
As Ed
Hi,
First let me say I really like your enthusiasm for debunking. It is rare
to see that much energy.
Not totally wrong, just wrongly interpreted.
Then you should help the laymen and failed scientists here interpret the
misinterpreted evidentiary record -- specifically, you should focus
I don't know whether to thank you for providing emotional comfort for my
working hypothesis that cold fusion's excess heat is a real effect, or
whether to curse you for providing such a poor excuse for skepticism that
it will lead guys like me to become lax in our genuine skepticism.
Going off
Joshua Cude is right -- today, 24 years after 1989, is there any lab
anywhere that has a single running cold fusion genre experiment that
produces verifiable anomalies? With global exponential evolution in all
fields concurrent with the Net...
I like that Widom and Larsen vividly discuss a huge
201 - 241 of 241 matches
Mail list logo
