On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote:
> On 11/06/2011 05:07 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: > >> Am 06.11.2011 18:36, schrieb Peter Gluck: >> >> >>> What I wrote is connected to a subject more popular here these days. >>> The future is unknown, but perhaps it could be useful to )re) read the >>> play OXYGEN by Djerassi and Hoffman >>> http://www.djerassi.com/**oxygen11/oxygen.htm<http://www.djerassi.com/oxygen11/oxygen.htm> >>> I have translated it in Romanian but the text was lost due to a >>> hard-disk crash. >>> It gives an answer to the question: who has discovered oxygen? Not an >>> absolute answer. >>> >>> >>> >> There cannot be an absolute answer. There are many answers, some >> competing, some not. >> This is a little bit like the question "Were is the spring of the river >> Nil?". >> In reality rivers have many springs and one mouth end. (There are >> exceptions) >> >> A big problem is, when you discover something new then it has no name. >> So, how talk about this? >> Many did research phlogiston at this time, this was the prevalent >> theorie and might have discovered oxygen and might have described its >> behaviour correctly, but the term "oxygen" did not exist and the physics >> and chemistry of gases was unknown. >> So there where no possibility to put this discovery into a wider >> context. The language needed for this did not exist. >> They would have used the name "phlogiston" or other names and so their >> description is not understandable nowadays. >> >> So far I know, Lavoisier was the first who made documented quantitative >> measurements for oxidation and burning. He might not be this person that >> first discovered oxygen, but he developed these methods needed to prove >> and measure and predict its existence. >> >> > > Exactly. He took a quantitative approach, carefully weighting before and > after the combustion, and found out that the end products were heavier than > the combustible, and that lead in turn to the discovery of oxygen(in modern > scientific terms), and to the abandonment of the phlogiston theory. > But take notice that it was the quantitative approach, and particularly, > weighting, what leads to the modern discovery of oxygen. Moreover: when you > consider all the results of a combustion (not only those that have weight) > you can easily conclude that there's indeed something that is escaping > during the combustion, namely, in the form of light and warmth. Not that I > want to sustain or defend the phlogiston theory, (that's far from my > intention), but please take notice that a combustion is in fact something > involving more than just matter in the ordinary sense. > In a sense, the cherished modern notion of a combustion like just the > encounter of a combustible and an oxidizer, is just a partial truth(the > part that can be weighted), whereas the whole process is composed by much > more than that, and certainly involves something similar to the old, > discredited, phlogiston. > > We tend to value the explanations that conform to the notions of our time, > like, by example, materialism, and consider them to be true, but in fact > they are no more than approximations and, in a certain sense, just > conventions or discourses of our time. Reflections of our mental frameworks. > > Future mankind will find very strange, and even funny, not only the > partial and conventional notions of our time, but also the strength and > insistence with which we tend to adhere to them, as if they were absolute > truths, when they are in fact not more than conventions. Just in the same > way, or even more, as we tend to laugh now about past knowledge. > > Regards, > Mauro > > > Without this we would probably today still discuss about phlogiston >> theories and could doubt the existence of oxygene. >> >> Best, Peter >> >> >> What's really interesting, we now try to see how Mankind geta rid of >> Combustion as the main source of energy. Hydrogen can be the new Oxygen. >> Again a very complex story. But it surely started with F & P (03.23.1989) >> and with Piantelli's discovery (08.16.1989)- anomalous heat effect with Ni >> (as support for a ganglioside) in H atmosphere. > > The first scientific document of the field is; F. Piantelli: " Anomalous Energy Production in Experiments with H absorbed in particular metallic lattice. Atti Accad Fisiocritici, Seri XV, Tomo xxII pp 89-98 (1993) In 1993-4 Piantelli started to work with Focardi and Habel, possible not a very good decision (in retrospective) What I consider essential- the effect is not specific for Nickel, actually it is Transition Metals LENR. I am very curious which will be the *Best Ten LENR Energy Sources in 2025. *I have Internet connection (and minibar) installed for my grave, so I'll know it.. Peter > >> > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
