Mary, I would like very much to work with your acquaintance to see how his model compares to some of the in dept analysis I completed upon the October 6 test data.
I totally understand how his model must work and just want to see how it represents some of the fingerprints of LENR that I have found to exist. The most apparent one is the bump in T2 that I was referring to at the time stamp of 16:00 according to his graph. My theory is that a significant amount of LENR energy is released due to the drive waveform shape just prior to that time and I do not see any suggestion of it yet within your friends model. This is one of several important points that need comparison. I would like to have his model to experiment with, but I would not be able to run it at this location. I considered building one with the tools I have here, but felt that I would not be successful. I plead with this gentleman to work with me to help uncover the truth about any excess energy that might be found to arise out of LENR. If none shows up after the correct questions are presented and carefully discussed, I would not hesitate to report those results. It is in all of our interests to reveal the truth and I do not believe in hiding facts. It is hoped that the gentleman will come back to the table and have an honest and open discussion which I think will be productive. Mary, here is an opportunity for you to help me to prove or disprove Rossi's test results. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 6:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: MaryYugo asks: “Why is it that specific questions as to power output and duration are, to some cold fusion advocates, like sunshine to vampires?” And Mary, the same could be said for your ANONYMOUS modeler. When asked in a very polite, respectful manner some specific questions by Dave Roberson, YOUR ANONYMOUS ‘modeler’ responded with, “Sorry but I think my acquaintance doesn't wish to play with this any more.” So it’s ok for your side to avoid answering when the questions get tough? Sorry, NO GO. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander… Please do the Collective a favor and take your anonymous, repetitious and hypocritical arrogance elsewhere; same goes for your chickensh*t ‘acquaintance’. My acquaintance (who, in reality, I only know as an Internet identity) replied to three or four of Dave's inquiries in meticulous detail. After that, he may have felt that Dave was not following his argument. I don't know for sure and I have no opinion on that -- I wish and would have preferred it if he had made the assumptions underlying the model, the identity of the software, and the parameters of the simulation more clear but I'm not him. I don't control him. My opinion on the modeling is that it's probably good enough to cast a doubt on the Rossi and Lewan data of October 6 -- a doubt which is so easily resolved in the real world by a proper experimental design and a second much longer experiment, that the model itself is not worth arguing at length about. BTW, that is also what NASA officially wrote about the event specifically and about Rossi in general (as quoted by Krivit). My informant's reluctance is no justification or excuse for Jed's failure to supply proper citations for his, as usual, exorbitant and florid claims about "life after death" cells that run but we seem never to know how long or making how much power, how it was verified and independently replicated. It's also no excuse for Aussie Guy's claims which make it seem as if everything with Rossi and him is a done deal and all of it is happening soon -- until he reveals there is no contract, no delivery date, and no deal at all. Maybe Aussie should become an anonymous client to get a better delivery position? Rossi seems to prefer that type of customer. As for the rest of your remarks, I am very tempted to reply as rudely as you but out of respect for the others, I will resist the impulse, with some difficulty.
