Hi Horace,
Your alternative explanation for the device doesn't work, see my
comments in your text below.
2009/11/23 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/fuel_cell.html
I had no
Nothing to write home about:
History of Science
Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a
Negative?The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion**
Jay A. Labinger* and Stephen J. Weininger*
http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf
[This is very sloppy thinking. Here is a message I sent to Labinger.]
Subject: Cold fusion is not a negative claim
Greetings. I discovered your paper: Controversy
in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a Negative? -- The
Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion. I have
often heard your central argument.
2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar:
Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be
human free will
Then there is no problem is there?
Michel
2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar:
Yes. The problem with all these approaches will always fortunately be
human free will
Then there is no problem is there?
Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the
outcomes of the future experiments in human
No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a
thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!--
there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules
obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved.
Michel
2009/11/25 Mauro
THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM
11-24-09
There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails. It shows that the
scientists who have been pushing the man made global warming agenda have
been suppressing and altering data. Temperature data recorded over the last
ten years has apparently indicated
No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a
thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!--
there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules
obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved.
Oh well. Let's put it
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote:
THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM
11-24-09
There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails.
Actually, I believe they were hacked.
Terry
At 09:33 AM 11/25/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
History of Science
Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a
Negative?The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion**
Jay A. Labinger* and Stephen J. Weininger*
http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf
This is a common straw man
Jeff Fink wrote:
There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails. It shows that the
scientists who have been pushing the man made global warming agenda have
been suppressing and altering data.
It shows that some of them have been doing this, to some extent, mainly in
ways that are
I haven't looked at the referenced website yet, as I have little time
at the moment. However, it seems this might be a future topic of
interest on vortex-l, depending on how things go for Eaton, Sokol,
and Allan.
On Nov 25, 2009, at 12:09 AM, eagle-research.com eNotice wrote:
- - - -
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/making-a-simple-hydrogen-
production-system-even-simpler.ars
http://tinyurl.com/yft53y6
... one potential route to simplifying things down: it might be
possible to get rid of the photovoltaics entirely, ... the cobalt
phosphate catalyst can be
From Jeff Fink:
THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM
There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails. It shows that the
scientists who have been pushing the man made global warming agenda have
been suppressing and altering data.
...
Speaking of agendas, read:
THE FAMILY, The Secret
This is more Nocera no-sera nonsense ...
He now admits: It may not be anywhere near as efficient as some of the best
hardware on the market Nocera said, it's off by about a factor of 10, in
fact - but it's something that could be deployed even in countries without
much in the way of a GDP. (due
Michel, here I'll take another shot at getting things right.
On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/
fuel_cell.html
I had no idea an ultraclean rechargeable battery could be done so
simply!
Supplies:
- One foot of
On Nov 25, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
This is more Nocera no-sera nonsense ...
He now admits: It may not be anywhere near as efficient as some of
the best
hardware on the market Nocera said, it's off by about a factor
of 10, in
fact - but it's something that could be deployed
Gad. It still isn't right! Corrections below. I have vertigo at
the moment and can't think straight. I've actually done half of this
experiment, though decades ago, and it is interesting how the
concentration gradient wanders, it doesn't follow what you would
expect for any kind of E
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The paper, to its credit, mentions the heat-helium correlation. The
authors then attempt to toss cold water on it by raising, again,
general theoretical objections, and appear to be unaware that this
correlation exists across many
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:48:14 -0900:
Hi,
[snip]
I haven't looked at the referenced website yet, as I have little time
at the moment. However, it seems this might be a future topic of
interest on vortex-l, depending on how things go for Eaton, Sokol,
and
Horace,
My comments below, some things are still wrong
2009/11/25 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
Gad. It still isn't right! Corrections below. I have vertigo at the
moment and can't think straight. I've actually done half of this
experiment, though decades ago, and it is
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM
that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an
improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But
it doesn't leave room
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
I haven't looked at the referenced website yet, as I have little time
at the moment. However, it seems this might be a future topic of
interest on vortex-l, depending on how things go for Eaton, Sokol,
and Allan.
Who besides the inventor has achived
History of Science
Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a
Negative?The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion**
Jay A. Labinger* and Stephen J. Weininger*
http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf
I think this article deserves a closer look. It
relies heavily on
--- On Wed, 11/25/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Eagle-Research eNotice
To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 7:13 PM
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Horace Heffner
wrote:
I haven't looked at the
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I think this article deserves a closer look. It relies heavily on Simon, a
very good source.
I *loath* Simon's book. Hate it, hate it, hate it! He looks at people's
opinions and counts papers instead of evaluating calorimetry. Meta-analyses
are mostly bunk, and they
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
This is a common straw man argument made against the low-energy nuclear
reaction findings. It arises from an assumption that it would be necessary
to prove that cold fusion is truly impossible in order to convince the cold
fusion researchers to give up.
Right.
- Original Message
From: Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 6:02:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets
was or could be in the future
- Original Message
From: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, November 26, 2009 12:27:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
- Original Message
From: Michel Jullian
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, November
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 10:48:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
This is a common straw man argument made against the low-energy nuclear
reaction findings. It arises from an assumption that
Here is an analysis of CRU source code used in some of the models:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
But here's what's undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured
temperatures and those
derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960,
31 matches
Mail list logo
