Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    March now is it?

    Soon Marches ever on.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Posted By: PJHAt least Quenco posts are short(ish) and rare.
    Things are going very well at Stanford with work actually under way.
    Expect lots of gloating from me on the 4th March when I post results.
    I can see from your posts that you all wish me well.
    Thanks
    In your valve experiment, which terminal ends up positive with respect to the other: The valve anode connection or the valve cathode connection? You might want to add that to your description of expected results. Of course you might want to join the rest of the world by forming a testable hypothesis and then see if your experiment can test it. The valve experiment is incapable of evaluating what you claim: a violation of ANY statement of the Second Law, including the Kelvin statement.

    On this the 12th revision of soon that I can recall for the Futilifetti, I do not expect the properties of soon to change. Perhaps you will learn something from what you get from Stanford and perhaps you won't. I applaud that you are pursuing your passion despite the fact that your quest is fatally flawed.

    I do wish you well. But for you to get well will likely take professional psychiatric treatment.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Posted By: PJHAt least Quenco posts are short(ish) and rare.
    Things are going very well at Stanford with work actually under way.
    Expect lots of gloating from me on the 4th March when I post results.
    I can see from your posts that you all wish me well.
    Thanks


    Thanks for dropping by (and double thanks for keeping your SOON update brief and to the point).

    See you again in March when no doubt you will be back to tell us when the next SOON date will be ...
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Posted By: pcstruMarch now is it?

    Soon Marches ever on.

    The whackado Psalm 23:

    "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reality, I will fear no evidence, for fantastical beliefs are with me; my delusions and my denials, they comfort me."
    •  
      CommentAuthorPJH
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    No no no, March 4 is when I post the glorious results of the quencos built in Feb!
    March 5 is when I come here to gloat for 5 minutes.
    The same day that joshs announces he was only joking.
    I guess it is also the day before this pub shuts down.

    The collector is obviously negative, every single replication has confirmed that it is negative, and anyone with the slightest understanding of thermionics would see it could only be negative.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Abd is back to talking to himself on newvortex...that should make him feel better.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Posted By: PJHMarch 5 is when I come here to gloat for 5 minutes.

    Couldn't you just do that now and get it out of the way. I mean you're already gloating about something we can't see. What does it matter if you do this at a later date?
  1.  
    Round 2: Cude takes it again. Abd began well with a flurry of verbosity, which Cude then proceeded to demolish, pretty much line by line.
  2.  
    Posted By: PJHAt least Quenco posts are short(ish) and rare.
    Things are going very well at Stanford with work actually under way.
    Expect lots of gloating from me on the 4th March when I post results.
    I can see from your posts that you all wish me well.
    Thanks




    Posted By: PJHNo no no, March 4 is when I post the glorious results of the quencos built in Feb!
    March 5 is when I come here to gloat for 5 minutes.
    The same day that joshs announces he was only joking.
    I guess it is also the day before this pub shuts down.

    The collector is obviously negative, every single replication has confirmed that it is negative, and anyone with the slightest understanding of thermionics would see it could only be negative.


    Preserved for posterity. This is going to be fun.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Just think how much more impressive that would have been as "Feb 4 is when I post the glorious results of the quencos built in Dec!"
  3.  
    Posted by Abd:
    True "pathological science" […] would be long gone by now, except for a few fringe believers,


    I would regard homeopathy, perpetual motion, and dowsing as pathological, and they've been around for a century. Anyway, a few hundred fringe believers is a still only a few, considering the importance of cold fusion if it were real.


    The "negative" publication in 2010 was the Shanahan Letter.


    That may be another negative publication, but the one in Britz's database is about piezonuclear reactions, published in Phys Lett A.


    The editors at the Journal of Environmental Monitoring […] Then, Shanahan has complained, they did not allow him to respond further. The tables have turned.


    One response to a response to a response is rejected, and you conclude that the skeptical view is dead in the journals? I'm sure the journal did not want to become like an on-line forum. Meanwhile entire proceedings are rejected by the ACS and APS, and the prominent journals still don't touch cold fusion. Even the J Electroanal Chem, which published many of the early claims, stopped publishing in the field in 2000.



    Pseudoskeptics on cold fusion will have you look at the author of the Naturwissenschaften review, claiming that he's an unreliable and gullible "believer." They don't want you to look at the *publisher* and *reviewers* at peer-reviewed journals, who judge that.


    On the contrary, the skeptics repeatedly point to the absence of cold fusion papers in the journals in which it would automatically appear, if credible. Journals like Science, Nature, Physical Review, PRL, or any of the APS journals. The absence there is precisely the thing they cite as evidence that cold fusion is dismissed by the mainstream.


    Cold fusion turned the corner sometime almost ten years ago,


    And yet 9 years ago the DOE panel recommended against a special funding program, and judged the evidence not persuasive of nuclear reactions. The recommendations read almost exactly the same as the 1989 panel's recommendations. Someone forgot to tell them about the turned corner.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Posted By: PJHNo no no, March 4 is when I post the glorious results of the quencos built in Feb!
    March 5 is when I come here to gloat for 5 minutes.
    The same day that joshs announces he was only joking.
    I guess it is also the day before this pub shuts down.

    The collector is obviously negative, every single replication has confirmed that it is negative, and anyone with the slightest understanding of thermionics would see it could only be negative.
    Experiments should never assume.

    How much would you like to bet that come March 5, your Futilifetti will not have sucked any measurable heat out of a volume and converted that to electricity?
    •  
      CommentAuthorPJH
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Posted By: AngusJust think how much more impressive that would have been as "Feb 4 is when I post the glorious results of the quencos built in Dec!"


    Indeed it would have been, but it will be all the better for the wait.

    Alas it was out of my hands, something to do with woo started 2000 years ago.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPJH
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Joshs, you are silly to offer to bet with me, you need to save your pennies to see a psychiatrist on March 4.
  4.  
    Posted By: AngusJust think how much more impressive that would have been as "Feb 4 is when I post the glorious results of the quencos built in Dec!"


    Which year?

    Posted By: PJH Dec 28th 2011
    Why not save yourself from looking stupid and wait until Feb before you start crowing.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPJH
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Posted By: bloodymedia
    Posted By: AngusJust think how much more impressive that would have been as "Feb 4 is when I post the glorious results of the quencos built in Dec!"


    Which year?

    Posted By: PJH Dec 28th 2011
    Why not save yourself from looking stupid and wait until Feb before you start crowing.


    Thanks for that, I can recycle it!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Posted By: PJH
    Posted By: AngusJust think how much more impressive that would have been as "Feb 4 is when I post the glorious results of the quencos built in Dec!"


    Indeed it would have been, but it will be all the better for the wait.

    Alas it was out of my hands, something to do with woo started 2000 years ago.


    I think you missed my point, which was - that it would be better, given the history so far, to have results in hand before saying anything at all.
  5.  
    Posted By: PJH Dec 28th 2011
    Posted By: joshsIn all probability, 66 days from now, my face will be quite dry. No one, most of all you has presented any information that should give pause over trust of the mountainous evidence that has established the present thermodynamic laws. Based on your history with your claims against thermodynamics your cheeks are almost certain to be rather gooey again.


    Now that is the quote you can frame and hang on your wall.

    We all did.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPJH
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: PJH
    Posted By: AngusJust think how much more impressive that would have been as "Feb 4 is when I post the glorious results of the quencos built in Dec!"


    Indeed it would have been, but it will be all the better for the wait.

    Alas it was out of my hands, something to do with woo started 2000 years ago.


    I think you missed my point, which was - that it would be better, given the history so far, to have results in hand before saying anything at all.


    Why?
  6.  
    Posted By: PJHWhy?


    Because ...
    Philip Hardcastle on April 15, 2012Hi All,


    Further to my last post, please spread the word that the launch date is 11 June 2012 and on that day I will post as much proof of the device as I can that will not affect IP rights, this should include independent reports, data and video.


    Unlike Rossi and Steorn I will provide clear and unambiguous proof of a working device.