Re: [tt] [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

2013-05-08 Thread Joshua Cude
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > The reaction cannot be scaled up safely because it is not well understood > yet and it cannot be controlled, as Ed says. > > Rationalization. Everyone wants to see a bigger effect, whether it takes more material or not. It's not that hard

Re: [tt] [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

2013-05-08 Thread Joshua Cude
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Eugen Leitl wrote: > > >> > This is often stated, but of course it's nonsense. Who could reject a >> > phenomenon that replaces fossil fuels? That powers a car without >> refueling? >> >> This is precisely my problem with claimed evidence fo

Re: [tt] [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

2013-05-07 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 01:54:35PM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > > > > CF/LENR is not a giant effect. It is a phenomenon of Nature that is not > > understood well enough to make large yet. > > > On rare occasions it has been large, when people used very large cathodes. >

Re: [tt] [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

2013-05-07 Thread Jed Rothwell
Edmund Storms wrote: > CF/LENR is not a giant effect. It is a phenomenon of Nature that is not > understood well enough to make large yet. On rare occasions it has been large, when people used very large cathodes. Mizuno observed several days of heat after death at about 100 W. Presumably the

Re: [tt] [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

2013-05-07 Thread Edmund Storms
On May 7, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:25:11AM -0500, Joshua Cude wrote: On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Regardless of what is suggested as evidence, you will find a way to reject it. This is often stated, but of course it's non

Re: [tt] [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

2013-05-07 Thread Jed Rothwell
Eugen Leitl wrote: > > This is often stated, but of course it's nonsense. Who could reject a > > phenomenon that replaces fossil fuels? That powers a car without > refueling? > > This is precisely my problem with claimed evidence for CF/LENR. > Read history and you will see that many vitally im

Re: [tt] [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

2013-05-07 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:25:11AM -0500, Joshua Cude wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > > Regardless of what is suggested as evidence, you will find a way to reject > > it. > > > > This is often stated, but of course it's nonsense. Who could reject a > phenomenon