Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

yer welcome, sonny... On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Charles Hope wrote: > What a profound statement. Thank you! > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > On May 25, 2011, at 15:44, Rich Murray wrote: > >> Let's encourage non ad hominem, civil, polite, gracious, patient, >> evidence and detail oriented,

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

What a profound statement. Thank you! Sent from my iPhone. On May 25, 2011, at 15:44, Rich Murray wrote: > Let's encourage non ad hominem, civil, polite, gracious, patient, > evidence and detail oriented, genteel, lightly humorous, collaborative > communication -- one of the finest cultural i

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

Thanks for: "... Nevertheless, In my view you may not have adequately rebuttaled the bulk of Joshua's rebuttals in an honorable fashion" Let's encourage non ad hominem, civil, polite, gracious, patient, evidence and detail oriented, genteel, lightly humorous, collaborative communication -- one

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

Ok, Joshua Cude IS aware of Abd's posts. Good. ... >From Abd > I have not read the rest of his [Cude's] trash. > I have actual research to do. In my view such pithy responses tend to reveal petulant behavior and a little bit of immaturity too. Keep in mind, Abd, several days ago you essentiall

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

Joshua Cude to vortex-l show details 2:21 PM (7 hours ago) Part 2B On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: . > There are now about 17 reviews of cold fusion (not primary papers, there are many more of them) that have been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals si

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

At 05:21 PM 5/24/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: Part 2B On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: > The thrust of the Gozzi paper is opposite to what Cude wants us to conclude from his citation of it. In the body of the paper,

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

At 05:10 PM 5/24/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: --extensive reasoning from conclusions. I think I'm over engaging in religious debate. Believe your religion if you like, Cude, I hope it provides you with comfort. I do wonder, though, why you hide behind a pseudonym.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > >> No one said the helium is orders of magnitude about the detection limit. >> That's absurd. If it was, we would probably be able to zero in on the exact >> process that created it. It is significantly above the detection limit. It >>

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Heat, it is claimed, can be measured to mW, the helium, it is claimed, is >>> orders of magnitude above the detection limit, and yet the errors are huge. >>> >> >> Notice that Cude doesn't mention how accurately the helium can be >> measure

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

Part 2B On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > But, this is the point: Storm's analysis was recently accepted under peer review. Storms' analysis is a review of conference proceedings. Big deal. > There is no contrary analysis in the literature. There is no confirmi

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

Part 2A On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Huizenga was impressed that the helium was within an order of magnitude of the helium expected if the reaction was deuterium -> helium. Cude is now completely blase about it. Ho-hum. Just another nutty cold fusion claim

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

At 08:45 PM 5/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is a good analysis. Thanks. I've been working on this one for a while Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: But there is another problem with measuring helium quantitatively, which is capturing it.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

This is a good analysis. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > But there is another problem with measuring helium quantitatively, which is > capturing it. Variable amounts of helium will be held in the cell materials. > Miles simply captured samples of the effluent gases. . . . That he did. It seems

[Vo]:Joshua Cude at it, part 2

Joshua Cude said on http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/the-sun-rossi%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Denergy-catalyzer%E2%80%9D-and-the-%E2%80%9Cneutron-barometer%E2%80%9D/#comment-5907 [I'd written:] > "because the measured helium correlates very well, at the expected value for deuterium -> heliu