Michel Jullian wrote:
McKubre et al. did this with the Case experiment. Passel et al. published a
short paper that described a possible error in this, but I they were wrong.
Thanks Jed, the refs would be nice.
I don't have a copy. Tom Passell handed out printed copies at ICCF15
but I lost
At 12:13 AM 4/2/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 04/01/2010 08:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
Of course, *you* can't post on Krivit's
blog, he'll never approve any of
your posts -- or at any rate that's the
impression I
At 05:02 AM 4/2/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:
Re Stephen's argument that it can be argued that He can leak in in
spite of positive pressure, we could easily bathe the cell in a He
free environment, or simply make the cell He impermeable (metal or
metal coated cell casing).
Uh, how do you get an
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Personal communication from Krivit regarding Abd's posts, specifically.
Confirming what Krivit has written directly to me. By the way, that
is, in fact, courteous of him, to let me know that he's not going to
read my mail . . .
Me too. It saves me the trouble of
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
They are two different facts, and we have a fair amount of helium
data that is not correlated with heat. Hoffman reports a lot of
helium data in his book, based on EPRI reports, without heat data.
It's explicitly missing, and it seems that the helium measurements
2010/3/31 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
Sent from my iPhone
Not a valid excuse ;-)
On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it?
Michel Jullian wrote:
Too much proof makes people doubt.
Say what?!?
Okay, I assume that's a joke.
What we need is an indisputable proof of He production. All right it
leaks through glass, so how about a closed cell kept under positive
pressure? Surely, after a few days it would
On 04/01/2010 01:54 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2010/3/31 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
Sent from my iPhone
But when the helium findings
correlate with excess heat, it all changes. The results confirm each other.
Too much proof makes people doubt.
In what way does that
At 10:47 AM 4/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
They are two different facts, and we have a fair amount of helium
data that is not correlated with heat. Hoffman reports a lot of
helium data in his book, based on EPRI reports, without heat data.
It's explicitly missing,
At 08:22 PM 3/31/2010, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
God, protect me from false friends, who will agree with me when I'm astray,
and stoke the fires of my self-righteousness.
. . . to further their agenda.
Is that yours
There is a lot of wisdom in Islam, Abd ul-Rahman. Many thanks for elaborating
on the thought.
Lawrence de Bivort
On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:22 PM 3/31/2010, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com
At 01:54 PM 4/1/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:
Too much proof makes people doubt. What we need is an indisputable
proof of He production. All right it leaks through glass, so how about
a closed cell kept under positive pressure? Surely, after a few days
it would accumulate a sizable amount of He,
At 02:05 PM 4/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Too much proof makes people doubt.
Say what?!?
Okay, I assume that's a joke.
Well, psychologically he can be right. If you present piles of
evidence, particularly if you do it unskillfully, people can and will
assume you
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 9:40:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
Of course, *you* can't post on Krivit's
blog, he'll never approve any of
your posts -- or at any
On 03/31/2010 12:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 09:30 PM 3/30/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with the way Krivit presented the data in
order to make his point.
As I just mentioned in another post, I haven't studied his point in
this case. Perhaps you'd take a
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I don't agree with Rothwell that a truncated graph is never
acceptable, but using it to create an exaggerated impression is
indeed reprehensible.
If you truncate the graph, you should say so: graph is truncated
from original. Also, never remove the numbers from
Friends,
I object to the heavy Krivit bashing, it is not called for, even if
the evidence for the 24MeV heat/He was solid enough which I don't
think it is. And he is free to present his graphs as he pleases in his
slides, especially if he directs the reader to a more complete graph
elsewhere.
In
On 03/31/2010 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Friends,
I object to the heavy Krivit bashing, it is not called for,
After looking over his slides, I actually think it is called for. I am,
in fact, extremely surprised by your defense of him.
Krivit appears to be accusing much of the CF
Michel Jullian wrote:
I object to the heavy Krivit bashing, it is not called for, even if
the evidence for the 24MeV heat/He was solid enough . . .
My objection has nothing to do with the 24 MeV issue. I object to
sloppy, biased reporting, and amateur mistakes such as removing the
numbers
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 12:46:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
At 09:30 PM 3/30/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
I don't see anything wrong
- Original Message
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Even if you do not intend to create an exaggerated impression,
people like me will assume that is your intention. You have made a naive
mistake. So don't do it without a good reason, and state your reason.
I guess all
On 03/31/2010 12:24 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Even if you do not intend to create an exaggerated impression,
people like me will assume that is your intention. You have made a naive
mistake. So don't do it
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com
wrote:
In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it?
A familiarity with the history of the dispute, and even of very recent
On 03/31/2010 02:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it?
A familiarity
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
He generally treats the silence that ultimately results from experts
in the field, after attempts to answer Krivit's often hostile
questions, as proof of stonewalling and the expert having something
to hide. See how he treated the ENEA researchers over
his own silly
At 09:40 AM 3/31/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 03/31/2010 12:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
As I just mentioned in another post, I haven't studied his point in
this case. Perhaps you'd take a look and explain it. I'm tired of being
the only one who deconstructs his rants in detail.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
God, protect me from false friends, who will agree with me when I'm astray,
and stoke the fires of my self-righteousness.
. . . to further their agenda.
Is that yours or a quote from an adept?
T
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 11:09:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
You have put your finger on the
point which Krivit either has totally
missed, or is totally
At 12:15 PM 3/31/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
Would you be willing to check it out,
cite and look at the original sources, etc.?
I am simply calling Jed out on his non-sense charge about the abuse
of statistics. I don't know enough to judge Krivit's point.
You don't know enough to judge
At 12:24 PM 3/31/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
I guess all readers of Krivit are Jed clones.
We could do worse. But I'm older than Jed, I think. Still, everything
I know about cold fusion I learned from Jed.
Well, or from his web site. Slightly exaggerating, but he's been
extraordinarily
At 02:37 PM 3/31/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 03/31/2010 02:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't
Steve Krivit sent me the following message. He told me he has cut me
off with the Delete Before Read feature, so there is no point to
responding to him. If his mysterious friend (Mitchell Swartz, I'll
bet) communicates with him again, I suggest you tell him to buy the
book How to Lie with
To reiterate, the cheap trick I referred to was removing the bottom
of the graph (the zero line) and the numbers from the axes. Krivit
says that was simplified so people can get the larger picture. It
doesn't look simplified to me but anyway, don't ever do that, for any reason.
That's what I
the larger picture being, what we want them to think
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
To reiterate, the cheap trick I referred to was removing the bottom of the
graph (the zero line) and the numbers from the axes. Krivit says that was
simplified so
I don't see anything wrong with the way Krivit presented the data in order to
make his point.
Harry
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 5:46:42 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
Steve Krivit sent me the following
At 09:30 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with the way Krivit presented the data in
order to make his point.
Well, I have not examined this particular claim of Krivit's.
Apparently I should. Generally speaking, though, if you are trying to
make a point that someone altered
At 09:30 PM 3/30/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with the way Krivit presented the data in
order to make his point.
As I just mentioned in another post, I haven't studied his point in
this case. Perhaps you'd take a look and explain it. I'm tired of
being the only one
37 matches
Mail list logo
