Dear Ed, Cude is- in the best sense of the wording a paid killer. It is possible he pays but this does not change much.
I was always open to discuss about those two critical problems. also with low success rate (BTW Mizzou has said they have 20% success rate with their Pd-D electrochemical system in 2012. We HAVE to discuss,For example my recent "Active sites and NAE" paper on my blog had almost no feedback. IMHO, the first step is to consider irreproducibility intolerable.. Peter On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Peter, the response to Cude is for educational purposes, which you of all > people should understand and support. Many readers of Vortex share Cude's > views. We need to educate them. Cude is their spokesman. The other people > might learn by having some of the challenges answered. Nevertheless, a > debate with Cude is not useful because his response will not be productive. > Hopefully, other people will ask useful questions that can be answered, as > a few people have done. > > As for concentrating on problems of reproducibility and upscalability, I > have tried to address these issues but with little support. > > Ed Storms > > On May 7, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > > I sincerely do not understand this collective exercise in masochism > based on discussion with a bravo as Joshua Cude. > He simply makes intentionally the error that considers CF's temporary > problems as a sign that. CF does not exist > Let's better concentrate on the problems of reproducibility and > upscalability > and if these cannot be solved in the Pd-D system then we have to solve > them in other systems.With Joshua we can build only parallel monologues not > a dialogue > > Peter > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com >> via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182> >> eskimo.com >> 7:48 AM (2 hours ago) >> to vortex-l >> >> Joshua, ...You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many >> mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists. >> >> ***In order to avoid a straw argument, I ask Joshua if you do argue >> this? If so, let's examine the mathematical possibility of so many >> positive results arriving by virtue of mistakes. >> >> I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive >> result to be 1 in 4. You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy >> afterwards. That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results, >> right? So let's be even more generous to the argument and make it 1 in 3. >> So if 3 independent labs generate positive results due to mistakes, it's 1 >> in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of happening. In my book, if there was a 1 in 10 >> chance of a professional scientist generating such errors, he should be >> fired; but that's just me. >> >> Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the >> chance of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication >> would be 1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000 >> >> Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The >> mathematical definition of Impossible is if something has a chance of >> 10^-50. Such a position is a whopping, gigantic, humungous four thousand >> Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGnitude less than impossible. I tell >> you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible to be “conservative” with >> the numbers (which is about on the order of the number of molecules in the >> universe), that is 4400 orders of magnitude less than impossible. >> >> >> >> * >> https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com >> *<https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com> >> >> >> >> Jing-tang He >> • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters >> • Frontiers of Physics in China >> Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8 >> This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense >> matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions, >> self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications. >> >> >> Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the >> Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect. >> * >> http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22) >> *<http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)> >> > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
