Why not investigating an thought example of two relatively big bodies
rotating around each other in perfectly circular orbit? Lets also assume
that these bodies are rotating around their own axis with no inclination.
The retardation means that one body will feel the force of the other
assuming
This morning I noticed several people linked to LENR-CANR.org via a
blog in Polish:
http://slomski.us/2010/03/30/wielka-spekulacja
I ran this through Google translate:
On 03/31/2010 12:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 09:30 PM 3/30/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with the way Krivit presented the data in
order to make his point.
As I just mentioned in another post, I haven't studied his point in
this case. Perhaps you'd take a
Frank Znidarsic wrote:
We will it have a bad effect or will some warming be good. So what
if the ice melts, ice is good for nothing.
I hope that is your idea of a joke.
Then there came a speaker from Australia. Some areas in Australia
did not have any significant rain in 15 years. The
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I don't agree with Rothwell that a truncated graph is never
acceptable, but using it to create an exaggerated impression is
indeed reprehensible.
If you truncate the graph, you should say so: graph is truncated
from original. Also, never remove the numbers from
Friends,
I object to the heavy Krivit bashing, it is not called for, even if
the evidence for the 24MeV heat/He was solid enough which I don't
think it is. And he is free to present his graphs as he pleases in his
slides, especially if he directs the reader to a more complete graph
elsewhere.
In
On 03/31/2010 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
Friends,
I object to the heavy Krivit bashing, it is not called for,
After looking over his slides, I actually think it is called for. I am,
in fact, extremely surprised by your defense of him.
Krivit appears to be accusing much of the CF
Michel Jullian wrote:
I object to the heavy Krivit bashing, it is not called for, even if
the evidence for the 24MeV heat/He was solid enough . . .
My objection has nothing to do with the 24 MeV issue. I object to
sloppy, biased reporting, and amateur mistakes such as removing the
numbers
On 03/30/2010 05:26 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
That's certainly true -- it looks suspicious. But again, it's not
conclusive, and it doesn't point to any specific error.
Thinking back on it, there was never a smoking gun or specific
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 12:46:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
At 09:30 PM 3/30/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
I don't see anything wrong
- Original Message
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Even if you do not intend to create an exaggerated impression,
people like me will assume that is your intention. You have made a naive
mistake. So don't do it without a good reason, and state your reason.
I guess all
_http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Eventstab1=Displayid=245_
(http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Eventstab1=Displayid=245)
Frank Znidarsic
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
If the current RMS value is off by a similar factor, then
the measured input power is off by a factor 3.5^2 -- it's about 12 times
too small.
Thanks for the excellent analysis. This seems about right. And also thanks
for dredging up this
On 03/31/2010 12:24 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Even if you do not intend to create an exaggerated impression,
people like me will assume that is your intention. You have made a naive
mistake. So don't do it
I don't recall Naudin's specific error and I don't have time to look at what
his site now claims. However, the error was quite obvious. I think it was
that
Naudin used (P*V)*(P*I) to calculate power thus introducing an extra
factor of P and explaining the OU proportional to 1/P.
George Holz
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The quality of the translation is surprisingly good. Google is getting
better at this every day.
Yes, I was able to read Peter Glück's newsletter translated from Romanian.
T
I added the paper referenced by Krivit to the library:
Bush, B.F. and J.J. Lagowski, Trace Elements Added to Palladium by
Electrolysis in Heavy Water. 1999, EPRI: Palo Alto, CA
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushBFtraceeleme.pdf
I should check the EPRI site periodically to find out if they
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com
wrote:
In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it?
A familiarity with the history of the dispute, and even of very recent
Thank you, Terry I am honored!
By the way my editorials are not popular (I am an intellectual), however the
search part is really rich in information.
This answer is in the same time a test- I have sent a lot of info re Miles's
results and Takahashi's ACS paper to Vortex but it did not arrived
Really. It sounds like a James Bond Cold War thriller. See:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-nuclear-scientist-defects-us-cia-intelligence-coup/story?id=10231729page=1http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-nuclear-scientist-defects-us-cia-intelligence-coup/story?id=10231729
Good for U.S. intel!
On 03/31/2010 02:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it?
A familiarity
Frank Znidarsic wrote on 3-31-10;
I attended a global warming conference today at the
University of Pittsburgh. I was not convinced of the
reality of it, is global warming real or is it not real.
Hi All, 3-3-10
Global warming is real. A couple of solar cycles
are on the downswing right
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
He generally treats the silence that ultimately results from experts
in the field, after attempts to answer Krivit's often hostile
questions, as proof of stonewalling and the expert having something
to hide. See how he treated the ENEA researchers over
his own silly
Another speaker from Switzerland. Showed a picture of the top of
Matterhorn. It broke off and slid
down. The culprit, the melting of the permafrost due to global warming.
Frank
I wrote:
40% of the population may have to be relocated. If it does not
rain in the next few years Australia as a nation may not exist.
That's awful! I did not realize the situation is so dire.
I wish those people in Australia would take a serious look at cold
fusion. As I described in my
I honor you with my curiosity?
Well, I enjoyed your article on 2012 and the young ones' discussion.
When I have time, I will read others thanks to Google!
T
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Terry I am honored!
By the way my editorials are
Terry Blanton wrote:
I honor you with my curiosity?
For a writer or scientist, there is no higher honor.
- Jed
Peter writes here:
http://info.kappa.ro/
If you use the Google Chrome browser, you can set it to automatically translate.
His latest entry speaks of how far we are (not) removed from cavemen.
T
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Terry Blanton wrote:
Peter's quote:
But today the world has changed for the better, thinking technology,
we can afford and need to think differently as a cave man.
It reminds me of the Geico commercials: So easy a caveman can do it.
We call ourselves civilized; but, I say we have a long way to go.
T
On Wed, Mar
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way my editorials are not popular (I am an intellectual), however the
search part is really rich in information.
The truth is rarely popular, Peter.
Vorts, go to the previous entry and read about how Peter fakes
At 09:40 AM 3/31/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 03/31/2010 12:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
As I just mentioned in another post, I haven't studied his point in
this case. Perhaps you'd take a look and explain it. I'm tired of being
the only one who deconstructs his rants in detail.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
God, protect me from false friends, who will agree with me when I'm astray,
and stoke the fires of my self-righteousness.
. . . to further their agenda.
Is that yours or a quote from an adept?
T
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 11:09:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick
You have put your finger on the
point which Krivit either has totally
missed, or is totally
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 12:17:48 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Krivit's new claim, transcript of ACS Krivit Pop Quiz
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=138
This is going to take some
work.
At 12:15 PM 3/31/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
Would you be willing to check it out,
cite and look at the original sources, etc.?
I am simply calling Jed out on his non-sense charge about the abuse
of statistics. I don't know enough to judge Krivit's point.
You don't know enough to judge
At
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/ColdFusionClaimsQuestioned.shtml
Steve Krivit summarizes issue 34 of NET.
1. 24 MeV/4He Does Not Exist
Contrary to what the public has heard and believed, the
purported best evidence for the theory of low-energy nuclear
At 12:24 PM 3/31/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
I guess all readers of Krivit are Jed clones.
We could do worse. But I'm older than Jed, I think. Still, everything
I know about cold fusion I learned from Jed.
Well, or from his web site. Slightly exaggerating, but he's been
extraordinarily
At 02:37 PM 3/31/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 03/31/2010 02:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't
On 03/31/2010 05:29 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
Another speaker from Switzerland. Showed a picture of the top of
Matterhorn. It broke off and slid down. The culprit, the melting of
the permafrost due to global warming.
This happened in 2003, according to stories I saw when I googled
Am I correct in believing a near luminal basketball could pass through the
eye of a stationary needle?
The basis for this editorial was the book Caveman Logic by the Canadian
psychologist Hank Davis. The persistence of an obsolete mode of thinking
is damaging- and makes Davis more atheist than Dawkins.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter's quote:
But
I am very much pro-Google. From the very start of my newsletter, I have -at
Search a separate column for Google. When I have read their (Brin Page)
paper in 1998 I had a
technorevelation- this is the Solution! And I was right as we can see inter
alia from this
translation performance too. I am
42 matches
Mail list logo
