to reach this goal is Hagelstein who says he will
send out NANOR samples to be replicated, or maybe Celani.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
However, a useful theory would allow the active conditions to be
described and created. This ability would
the expected frequency only a
few fold at best.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video
shows. As for shooting down an object
On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic
paths. People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any
idea that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can
look for the overall patterns that must
at 2:41 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled
through random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur
at the same time by random change and explore the reason why they
occurred at the same time? Why
(a super-lattice)
composed of two interlaced sublattices; one sublattice of host
nuclei with extended neutron wavefunctions and another of proton/
deuterons with non-localized wavefunctions.
2013/2/19 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote
-localized wavefunctions.
2013/2/19 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic
paths. People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any
idea that comes to mind regardless
has anyone else done this.
My question is, Do we fight about the color of the car or do we
cooperate by designing the engine?
Ed
On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
This goes into something crucial. Comment will be appreciated.
At 04:08 PM 2/19/2013, Edmund Storms wrote
.
These are details, not the main event. We need to focus on what is
basic and characteristic of LENR and not be distracted by secondary
reactions.
Ed
On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:11, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
1. He4 is made without energetic
covers the condition you
are interested in.
You might be well served in looking into this field of physics for
insight.
Cheers: Axil
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I will ignore the nit-picking and focus on the important points Abd
raised
On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 07:13 PM 2/19/2013, Edmund Storms wrote:
I will ignore the nit-picking and focus on the important points Abd
raised.
Sensible.
First of all, he and I have a fundamental difference of opinion that
can not be resolved by facts
, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
However, Abd misses a basic consequence of what a theory does. A
theory is not designed to promote LENR, to make it acceptable, or
even to satisfy skeptics. A theory allows the process to be made
reproducible and brings the process under control
People seem to be missing the essential issue here. A theory gives
information about a process or phenomenon that is required to make it
happen on demand. A process cannot be believed or even studied unless
it can be made to occur on demand. So far, LENR occurs occasionally by
chance or
On Feb 20, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Yes Eric, occasionally a very few neutrons and energetic particles
are detected. These are at least 10 orders of magnitude below the
main effect, hence are not part
the edges.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
To make 1 watt of power using d+d=He, the fusion reaction has to
happen at 10^11 times a second, which would produce radiation at
this flux if it resulted from the process. The detected energetic
On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something
about how radiation and LENR behave.
***Perhaps you should take it up with the owners
All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can
be removed from the cell and be restarted. But, at some point, the
energy production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on
the surface and so much stress is created by changes in composition
that the active
The problem with tis approach is the need to apply energy to get the
process started. This takes the form of electrolytic power or
increased temperature. As a result, the material starts hotter than
the environment. The question is, Is this extra temperature natural or
extra. Looking at
is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's
experience can't be sure if a sample will work or not.
[mg]
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and
can be removed from the cell and be restarted
First of all, your question was not about my theory. It was about how
I would expected a BEC would behave, which has no relationship to my
theory
Second, I explained to you why I did not answer your question and you
replied with demanding arrogance. In a discussion group, interaction
I periodically have to start over with this discussion because the
response provided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear
conclusions are no longer possible. In addition, a clearer
understanding results from these discussions and this needs to be
examined without the
Paul, you need to be careful how you describe correlation. A nuclear
reaction must produce radiation in some form. This is the only way
energy of the required magnitude can be released from a nuclear
process. The only issue is how much of this radiation can be detected
outside of the
material can be quickly
identified. This tool has been ignored. I'm trying to get you and
other people to use it.
Ed
Paul
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Paul, you need to be careful how you describe correlation. A
nuclear reaction must
Do you think that a random comic ray would start a process at one
single site in a material that causes steady release of watts of
power? Cosmic rays do not even initiate chemical reactions. For
example TNT is completely stable in spite of being bombarded
continuously. Of course,
22, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Do you think that a random comic ray would start a process at one
single site in a material that causes steady release of watts of
power? Cosmic rays do not even initiate chemical reactions. For
example TNT is completely
Paul, I have seen no credible demonstration that the Curie temperature
plays any role. This idea is mostly based on various arbitrary
models. In the nickel case, the effect becomes visible at higher
temperatures simply because the rate increases with temperature. The
effect can only be
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You pose an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads to
an increase in the number of NAE that form due to its interaction
with the metal. Who knows?
If enough helium forms, this will certainly be true. However, this
Yes Dave, thin layers of Pd have been studied and found to produce
energy. In addition, the behavior of helium and tritium show that they
are made very near the surface and not in the bulk. These issues have
been well discussed.
Ed
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:43 PM, David Roberson wrote:
The
after this
stage. The question is, What happens during this unknown stage in the
process? This is where I suggest you apply your ideas.
Ed
You might want to consider how this effect could fit into your theory.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, When Szpak observed
Let's start from a different viewpoint. I would like to find out from
Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to my
approach. I'm trying to explain what is common to all approaches,
which might be combined, and where they are different and might need
to be modified.
I
that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This requires a
theory.
Ed
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Let's start from a different viewpoint. I would like to find out
from Tom and other people whether their approach can
Yes Robin, hydrinos are a possible feature in the LENR process.
Several people have proposed this idea using a different justification
than Mills gives. However, this is not the only feature in the process
that needs energy to occur. At the present time, the understanding has
to focus on
states from standard
quantum mechanics
http://128.84.158.119/pdf/0704.0631
If we accept one, we have to reject the other?
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Let's start from a different viewpoint. I would like to find out
from Tom and other people
On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:59 PM, James Bowery wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
...No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST
follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a
normal chemical structure
interference at work in the gap of a
nanoparticle dimer.
I suggest you ask Mills or read his many papers. He claims to have
demonstrated the existence of something he can describe as a hydrino.
Ed
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Axil, QM
Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing
coupling between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected based
on local temperature and a photon flux. What more do you propose?
Ed
On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Robin,
The net energy released by a
such experiments?
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing
coupling between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected
based on local temperature and a photon flux. What more do you
propose?
Ed
Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing
coupling between the NAE sites
reactions and get them to cooperate with their neighbors then that
might become possible.
I see no basic difference. We are only nitpicking about details.
Ed
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor
phonon eigenmodes in the lattice?
Bob
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Regardless of their involvement, the Coulomb reduction process must
take place in a manner to allow the mass-energy to be released
gradually in small quanta before the fusion
I agree Chris. This delay is embarrassing. However, if you examine the
nature of the ridicule, you will see a common feature. The writers are
generally ignorant, angry, and without any ability to understand
logic. Consequently, CF has become a test of the mental health of
society. This
On Feb 25, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I agree Chris. This delay is embarrassing. However, if you examine
the nature of the ridicule, you will see a common feature. The
writers are generally ignorant, angry, and without any ability
Now Jed, you are agreeing with my conclusion. Should I take the
opposite view as you normally do?
My belief is that mankind will eventually find ways and means to
destroy all life as we know it. We are almost at this level now. The
only question is whether these means will be used. That
I suggested an explanation that apparently was lost in the discussion.
Suppose each asteroid has a swarm of smaller rocks in orbit around
it. Suppose one of these rocks was in an orbit that caused it to
approach the earth from the opposite direction at the time of the
meteor strike in
three very
rare events happened at nearly the same time? Is that conclusion less
plausible than the one I propose? In any case, an orbit exists that
would cause the effect, so I do not see how this idea can be rejected.
Ed
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Edmund Storms
stor
That is exactly the issue I raised. If the swarm of rocks in orbit
around the asteroid are too small to seen, their existence will be
overlooked until it is too late. We might want to look more carefully
at the images.
Ed
On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
As a practical
This picture does not look real. Note that the aerial view and the
ground view do not match.
Ed
On Mar 1, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
You must be right:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/05/31/honduras.storm.emergency/index.html
Forgive me, but this idea has no value. The design proposes to use a
slug of powder to create a high temperature that is converted to
electric power that drives a motor that drives a fan. No provision is
made for control of temperature, stimulation of the LENR reaction, or
efficient
: Edmund Storms
Ø [snip] motor that drives a fan. No provision is made for control
of temperature …
Wait a minute. Why doesn’t the airflow from the fan control the
temperature by removing heat from the fins which are themselves
heated by the TEG ?
Are you complaining that he did not show heat
But this is not a demonstrated device. It is a drawing of what Miley
would like to see work. I could provide a drawing also, but where
would I get the fuel? The fuel is the problem. Once a fuel that makes
a lot of heat for long periods is available, the engineering design
will follow. This
I doubt many people on this list have written a proposal to get
funding from a US government agency or evaluated such proposals, but I
have. Certain requirement are demanded. These in part are: the reason
why the program is important to the country , the exact way the
money will be
Chris, Rossi has produced real power using LENR. The only question is
whether he can use this to make a commercial product that is reliable
and meets a commercial need. Rossi is not a fake because the energy
is real. Unfortunately, he is very poor at public relations and has
very little
Dennis, the CMNS group is the proper forum. Would you explain what you
are proposing there?
Ed
On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:07 AM, DJ Cravens wrote:
The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no
input. This is with about 25 grams
of sample (density about 3 gm/ml - metal in C).
On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:46 AM, DJ Cravens wrote:
CMNS started (or restarted) with the intent of experimental
discussions but it is seldom that, now mostly
spinning theories- Seldom any nuts and bolts. I think the only
real forum for nuts and bolts are papers and
posters these days.
The
Jim, why assume the neutron is stripped from the D? This requires 1.7
MeV/event. Where does this amount of energy come from? We know that
fractofusion occurs when D is present and this produces neutrons. An
explosive reaction would certainly create cracks in the container that
could cause
of the chemical
reaction. That is not possible because to make any energy the DCl
molecule has to form, which can not have the required kinetic energy
simply based on momentum considerations.
Ed
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:09 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Jim, why assume the neutron
Ed
On Mar 14, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, I assume you accept that E=mc2 and that if the mass of a
reaction changes, the energy has to come from somewhere.
Here is the mass change
D =
2.014101778
H=
1.00727647
n=
1.0086649
The gain in mass is D-n= p
On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Here is the mass change
D =
2.014101778
H=
1.00727647
n=
1.0086649
The gain in mass is D-n= p
You are making an incorrect assumption. The O-P effect (i.e.
“stripping”) is not thermonuclear, it is quantum mechanical
Robin, according to my tables, the mass of a bare d is 2.014101778,
which is the value I used. I don't know where you got the idea an
electron is involved. These are nuclear reactions.
Ed
On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:27 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 14
Robin, that is not my understanding. The values are from GE nuclear
Energy 15 Edition that give the mass of the nucleus. The mass is not
only obtained using a mass spectrometer. It is obtained by IUPAC using
a complex evaluation based on nuclear decay and energy measurements as
well. The
Thanks Robin, I see the problem. In this case, both the d and the p
mass I used contains the electron. As a result, the energy change I
calculated is correct because the electron mass cancels out.
Nevertheless, this is not what Jones was claiming, so the value is not
relevant.
Ed
On Mar
Peter has raised an important subject, but one so filled with emotion
and complex arguments, knowing where to start is the problem. The
discussion of theory we are witnessing is an indication of a deeper
problem.
Yes, CF is difficult to explain, but how we go about this discussion
is
Here is the response by Krivit, which he asked be posted on the
discussion groups.
Ed
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: March 21, 2013 4:17:54 PM MDT
To: Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: CMNS
===
On Mar 21, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Here is the response by Krivit, which he asked be posted on the
discussion groups.
Ed
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: March 21, 2013 4:17:54 PM MDT
On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
As you note, ultracold neutrons are an old and respected niche of
physics - and these known cold neutrons are easily detectable and
bear not the slightest resemblance to the W-L concoction – which
I don't remember be cranky with Krivit. I was disgusted and
dumbfounded at his approach, which I explained in the same way I
explain similar feelings here on Vortex. The exaggeration he describes
is totally in Krivit's mind. I'm also at a loss as to how an
expression of a personal opinion
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I don't remember be cranky with Krivit.
It doesn't take much to set him off. He thinks the worst of me, and
many others.
I was disgusted and dumbfounded at his approach, which I explained
Jed, funding is not available from conventional sources because these
sources do not believe the effect is real. Consequently, the money
must come from private individuals. Such people have funded work of
various people, including myself, for a long time, but now even their
patience has
Thanks for pointing out this exchange, Steven. I have been following
the discussion and have been commenting privately to Krivit.
The level of confusion in this field, as revealed by the discussions I
read and what Krivit says, is too great for conventional science to
take any interest.
I agree with you, Jed. The most effective way to understand LENR is by
seeing the patterns it creates. You see the patterns produced by
interest in the subject. These pattens become obvious only when a
large data set is viewed. As a result, you see clearly what interests
the most people,
Peter, I'm glad you are trying to look at the LENR phenomenon from a
broad perspective. Let me add a few of my insights about where I think
the field stands right now without naming names.
More than enough information has been accumulated to provide the basis
for the correct explanation
will get the solution- what is the essential
difference
between LENR (passive, powerless, problematic) and LENR+ (active,
autonomous, application-ready). I think the clue is an accelerated
mode of
NAE-genesis.
Peter
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote
electrical field induced within the influence of the
laser field is 5 milliseconds instead of 69 years.
With this type of experimental evidence, will you look into
Nanophotonics?
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
OK Peter, let's discuss. I view
of Nanoplasmonics directed toward
LENR will be well worth your valuable time.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Ed Storms
arxiv.org/pdf/0906.4268
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Yes, Axil, radioactive decay can be affected several different ways
I find these discussions about LENR to be an amazing example of how
people can have beliefs that are in direct conflict with each other
and even with reality itself. Let me give two examples.
First, most people believe Rossi is a fraud and cannot be believed,
but they will nevertheless
will suggest some
if anyone is interested.
Ed Storms
On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
First, most people believe Rossi is a fraud and cannot be believed,
but they will nevertheless believe him when he claims his heat results
OK, here is another example of wishful thinking based on no data what-
so-ever. The idea that lithium can be involved in LENR is based on the
W-L theory, which has no support at all, neither from basic science
nor from the observed behavior of LENR. Yet, it is used as an
explanation of the
On Apr 30, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
First, most people believe Rossi is a fraud and cannot be believed,
but they will nevertheless believe him when he claims his heat
results from transmutation of Ni.
I believe those are different
about Rossi's claims.
Ed Storms
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I find these discussions about LENR to be an amazing example of how
people can have beliefs that are in direct conflict with each other
and even with reality itself. Let me give
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li-battery
fires
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
First, most people believe Rossi is a fraud and cannot be believed,
but they will nevertheless believe him when he
On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:06 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:56:55
-0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Jed, while this might be different groups, I get the impression that
many people trying to make sense from his claims do not think highly
of Rossi as a
though I remain skeptical of his claims, it
would not surprise me to find that he actually has something that
one day will be proven valid. I keep my fingers crossed.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
more study than most
people care to apply.
Ed Storms
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 12:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li
On May 1, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
Hi Ed,
In fact, I suggested an explanation that met all of these
requirements, but this was either rejected or ignored. Consequently,
I have very little hope for any theory being accepted any time soon.
I have read your recent JCMNS
I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the
application frequently sucks! The Scientific method is a guide, like
the Ten Commandments, but is likewise frequently ignored.
Nevertheless, the idea works and provides an incentive for people who
need a guide.
Ed
On May 2, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I now propose it is a chain formed from 2p bonds that allow a series
of hydrons to form a chain of atoms. This kind of bond is normally
not stable. I propose
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Eric, before you make a conclusion you really need to understand
what I'm proposing, rather than using your own imagination. First of
all
On May 2, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Eric, before you make a conclusion you really need to understand
what I'm proposing, rather than using your own imagination. First of
all, the Hydroton is a neutral
On May 3, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
On 5/3/2013 8:31 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Eric, tunneling in my mind is not real. It is a conceptual ploy to
fix a flawed understanding of how a process actually works.
Consequently, I do not use this concept.
Tunneling is very real
8:56 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
We were discussing nuclear reactions. Tunneling is applied when a
reaction that should not be possible based on a theory is found to
actually occur at an unexpected rate.
I kind of understand. The confusing thing is that tunneling is
*already* used to compute
This is obviously a spoof. Someone is just having fun and looking to
get a serious reply.
Ed
On May 3, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
wrote:
That's not a TED talk. It's a TED conversation.
Oh. Google Alerts casts
be
retained. Quantum mechanics is a self-consistent theory, and
tunneling is an intrinsic part of it.
Perhaps it's no wonder that someone with such a misguided
understanding of elementary physics is also a true believer in cold
fusion.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Edmund Storms
stor
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
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
The role of the substrate depends on the mechanism. While all of the
proposed mechanism are applied to Pd, this does not mean Pd is the
only material that supports the NAE. People have used Ti, Ni, various
alloys, and various oxides with success. Once the NAE can be made on
purpose and in
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
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
On May 5, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
wrote:
Whereas Hagelstein’s model, when all is said and done, is an
invention created to match an experimental outcome (which it does)
but with no precedent in physical reality.
like the
simplicity of such an approach. However, simplicity does not seem to
be the accepted approach is these discussions.
Ed Storms
On May 5, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
The very small number
On May 5, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF.
I am probably missing something important, but I don't see how the
statement below follows from the one above
701 - 800 of 1275 matches
Mail list logo
