Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Bowery wrote: > >> >> The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at >> the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the >> direct evidence of the

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > ** > > > On 11-11-16 08:59 AM, James Bowery wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of thos

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

At 06:02 PM 11/15/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: and selected scientists to a demo of that device at which they were not allowed to oversee data collection?  http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41536.html [Vo]:Celani's report on Rossi January 14 test Jed Rothwell Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:58:2

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:59 AM, James Bowery wrote: > > > The pseudoskeptics are basically saying ... > You lost me before the incredibly convoluted prose -- at "pseudoskeptics". There is every reason to view Rossi's claims skeptically.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On 11-11-16 08:59 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote: On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claim

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Bowery wrote: > > The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at > the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the > direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending > skepticism about Ro

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: > >> The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who >> are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and >> Fleischmann had any validity to their

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Am 16.11.2011 02:57, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com>> wrote: If I knew something worth a vast fortune, I'd consult with the best possible people about how to protect it. I'd pay them well and do what they said to. How do you know Rossi is not doing that?

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary, thanks for http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/12/swedish-public-radio-turns-spotlight-on-lewan-and-ny-teknik/#comments You've already describe the possibilites of Rossi taking substantial investments with iron clad nondisclosure agreements...

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > ... but all of his choices seem risky. ... > > But that's the thing. They are not. Performing a completely thorough test, as Rossi was advised to do, is not risky even in public. Certainly it is not as risky as a sale. Neither is a secret

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo wrote: > > So you think experts on intellectual property protection told Rossi to > give 12 or more poorly controlled and calibrated demonstrations more or > less in public, not to get a single independent test . . . > They would not advise him about this. It is not any concern of thei

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> If I knew something worth a vast fortune, I'd consult with the best >> possible people about how to protect it. I'd pay them well and do what they >> said to. > > > How do you know Rossi is not doing that? > > So you

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo wrote: > If I knew something worth a vast fortune, I'd consult with the best > possible people about how to protect it. I'd pay them well and do what they > said to. How do you know Rossi is not doing that? He has hired top experts at NI to design his control systems. He is not a foo

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:17, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Many things about Rossi make no sense. He is not a predictable person, and > not easy to understand. His motivations are obscure. He is complicated. His > business practices seem risky and ineffective to me. He does many things that > make him

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Oh come now. You know perfectly well there is a good reason for not > telling people this sort of thing. This information is worth a trillion > dollars. The secret to producing cold fusion is worth a lot. That he claims is his catalyst. I

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > There is no doubt he has control over it. > Wrong. I doubt he has control over it, other than the obvious input current to heat it up, and maybe start some kind of reaction, and cooling water to cool it down, and maybe stop it. But I serio

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Oh come now. You know perfectly well there is a good reason for not > telling people this sort of thing. This information is worth a trillion > dollars. If he has not filed a patent application, and he goes around > telling people this sort

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo wrote: Why was Rossi tweaking the heat in mid experiment during the session dissected by Krivit in which Rossi peers nervously about and says "stable, stable"? How does a safety heater quench the reaction? I bet if you ask Rossi, he will tell you (in my opinion without reason)

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > As far as I know, Rossi has never said how he controls the device. > I do not recall that he has ever described this. A lot of people think it is by heating up the powder. That does not make a lot of sense to me. > He's said -- or implied -- that he has some amou

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On 11-11-15 05:05 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: -He can use more reactant because he has better control. It's just a niggle but I don't think, other than from what Rossi says, we have any sure understanding of how he even purports to control the device. As far as I know, Rossi has never said

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

> > -He can use more reactant because he has better control. > > It's just a niggle but I don't think, other than from what Rossi says, we have any sure understanding of how he even purports to control the device. While we're on that subject, why is a safety heater needed in a highly exothermic sy

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > No, he does not claim way more power. Adjusting for the mass of reactant > it is about the same as Fleischmann and Pons boiling experiments. > > > Wait ... Does this mean that the Saturn V didn't actually produce "'way > more power" than my Subaru's 4 cylinder engine,

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > On 11-11-15 12:10 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of the >> fluid, so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant. The much >> lower (claimed) overall power de

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On 11-11-15 12:10 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of the fluid, so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant. The much lower (claimed) overall power density coincides with the first demonstration that was not supposed to re

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On 11-11-15 11:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com>> wrote: Rossi claims way more power and uses different materials. No, he does not claim way more power. Adjusting for the mass of reactant it is about the same as Fleischmann and Pons boiling experiments.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

save your fingers too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zE1LbC4Fvs harry On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: > A lot of the keyboard banging could be avoided if folks would simply preface > their comments with 3 attributes: > > Business vs Science viewpoint > Circumstantial vs Di

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

At 07:31 AM 11/15/2011, James Bowery wrote: The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and Fleischmann had any validity to their claims.  This rhetorical maneuver denies the obvious Bayesian law of p

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > >> >> Let me see if I understand. You're making claims about the amount of >> catalyst present in the cells? Isn't this a bit like counting the angels >> on the head of a pin? >> > > Except that angels do not obey Archim

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > When many experiments in different laboratories all show anomalous heat > from metal hydrides, with Pd, Ni and Ti, most people say they are mutually > supportive. That is why replications are considered valuable. The > similarities seem obvi

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

-Original Message- From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l Sent: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 12:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was poorly

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Right, that's what I meant. It is the part labeled "Reactor" in Higgins' > diagram, which is not to scale: > > http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png > > > That device is where the power leads and hydroge

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was >> poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before. >> > > What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considera

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > James Bowery wrote: > > Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed? > > > I can't ban anyone. > Then that ends that discussion.

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo wrote: > > Let me see if I understand. You're making claims about the amount of > catalyst present in the cells? Isn't this a bit like counting the angels > on the head of a pin? > Except that angels do not obey Archimedes' law and they are invisible. Far as I know, Rossi has ne

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo wrote: > > That's completely wrong-- both sides of it. If P&F are correct, that does > not mean that Rossi's entirely different claim is correct. > I do not know anyone else who says it is entirely different. When many experiments in different laboratories all show anomalous heat from

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

> > > If it was the cell, isn't it much larger than previous cells? A factor >> of three or more larger? >> > > No, about the same. Plus there are three cells in this one. There is about > the same amount of active Ni catalyst. That is the only meaningful ratio. > The mass or volume of other stu

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo wrote: > Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect >> you knew that. Please do not play games -- if you did know that, do not >> pretend you did not. >> >> > I don't think so. What I read was that the finned box was another heat > exchanger with three

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

> > > We don't even know what the cell looked like. Rossi did not show it. All >> we saw was a large machine and inside was another box with some fins. Did >> I miss something? >> > > Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect > you knew that. Please do not play g

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo wrote: > We don't even know what the cell looked like. Rossi did not show it. All > we saw was a large machine and inside was another box with some fins. Did > I miss something? > Yes, you did miss something. The box with fins was the cell. But I suspect you knew that. Please do no

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 AM, James Bowery wrote: > Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed? > I don't mind because it helps make my case about some "believers" but is this not against the rules? Just curious. No need to bother. He makes himself look bad. Hey James, try answering the issu

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

James Bowery wrote: Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed? I can't ban anyone. This forum belongs to Bill Beaty. The beauty of e-mail systems is that you can selectively ban individual people. If Mary Yugo grates on you too much, just add her to your kill file. Anything I think Yugo's latest

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

> > > >> His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was >> poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before. >> > > What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably > higher than some previous demonstrations. The cell was no bigger th

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

disparaging name calling is evidence of exhaustion of sensible, evidence and reason based, responses... many here appreciate Mary Yugo's participation... it is frustrating that the evidence is so messy, which, as many besides Mary mention, is itself a large part of the pattern of the evidence...

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Mary Yugo wrote: > His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was > poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before. > What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably higher than some previous demonstrations. The cell was no big

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

Can't you just ban this noise-box, Jed? On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: > > The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who >> are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and >> Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

> The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who > are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and > Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver > denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If > P

[Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

A lot of the keyboard banging could be avoided if folks would simply preface their comments with 3 attributes: Business vs Science viewpoint Circumstantial vs Direct evidence Guilt vs Innocence presumption For instance, if someone has $2M in their retirement account and they're thinking about whe