Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
The key give away is that the Pioneer Anomaly has been solved (to most everyone's satisfaction): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
Anyway that is interesting to look back in the mirror. I've found such test balloon articles from mainstream sources, after 2009 SPAWAR revival, 2005 (something happened in that period... Seen Tsinghua replication of NASA GRC, a few other papers... Dunno what raised such hope). I understand why old apes are so careful an afraid the devil gets back in its box, again. youg apes, or de-cryogenizated apes like me, should be careful. 2013/3/5 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Bugger. Missed that. I assumed that they'd link from a current article [1] to a current article, not to history and now I find that that original article, which was linked to a current article wasn't any such thing ... it was also from 2005! I am now very suspicious of New Scientist but welcome to the new world of publishing where everything old is new again ...
Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
Mark Gibbs wrote: Bugger. Missed that. Good article though. Worth revisiting. So is this one: Daviss, B., /Reasonable Doubt/, in /New Scientist/. 2003. p. 36. This is about Szpak, Pam Boss, and Mel Miles. Among other things it describes how they demoted Mel from being a Distinguished Fellow of the Institute to stock room clerk because he had the temerity to publish a paper on cold fusion. He got the message and retired. - Jed
[Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?full=true And #13 is ... [m] 13 Cold fusion AFTER 16 years, it's back. In fact, cold fusion never really went away. Over a 10-year period from 1989, US navy labs ran more than 200 experiments to investigate whether nuclear reactions generating more energy than they consume - supposedly only possible inside stars - can occur at room temperature. Numerous researchers have since pronounced themselves believers. With controllable cold fusion, many of the world's energy problems would melt away: no wonder the US Department of Energy is interested. In December, after a lengthy review of the evidence, it said it was open to receiving proposals for new cold fusion experiments. That's quite a turnaround. The DoE's first report on the subject, published 15 years ago, concluded that the original cold fusion results, produced by Martin Fleischmannhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.100-interview-fusion-in-a-cold-climate.html and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and unveiled at a press conference in 1989, were impossible to reproduce, and thus probably false. The basic claim of cold fusion is that dunking palladium electrodes into heavy water - in which oxygen is combined with the hydrogen isotope deuterium - can release a large amount of energy. Placing a voltage across the electrodes supposedly allows deuterium nuclei to move into palladium's molecular lattice, enabling them to overcome their natural repulsion and fuse together, releasing a blast of energy. The snag is that fusion at room temperature is deemed impossible by every accepted scientific theory. That doesn't matter, according to David Nagelhttp://www.ece.seas.gwu.edu/people/nagel.htm, an engineer at George Washington University in Washington DC. Superconductors took 40 years to explain, he points out, so there's no reason to dismiss cold fusion. The experimental case is bulletproof, he says. You can't make it go away.
Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
Please note, that's from 2005. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
Bugger. Missed that. I assumed that they'd link from a current article [1] to a current article, not to history and now I find that that original article, which was linked to a current article wasn't any such thing ... it was also from 2005! I am now very suspicious of New Scientist but welcome to the new world of publishing where everything old is new again ... [m] [1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?full=true On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Please note, that's from 2005. - Jed
