Horace Heffner wrote:
On May 27, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Yep. Looks like there is still 5 years to go:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/dnl-rpb042507.php
On May 27, 2007, at 10:51 PM, thomas malloy wrote:
I thought is was 50 years My nephew, the power
I have never seen such a dense collection of nonsense about cold
fusion or science in general:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a1045883
See, for example:
Does a phenomenon have to be totally or partially reproducible to be
real? As far as science is concerned, the answer is 'totally'.
That an experiment is reproducible is the cornerstone of the
scientific method. What, precisely, is your issue with the statement?
As has been stated before, that is the difference between scientist
and inventor. For an inventor, getting it to work now and again is
enough. for a scientist, it
That's an old article, by the way. There is no point to responding. I
found it noteworthy because it is such a high-purity distillation of
nonsense. A sort of all-in-one expression of pathological skepticism.
- Jed
Considerable confusion seems to exist around the concept of
reproducibility. A phenomenon must be easily reproduced in order to be
studied by science in general. Difficult to reproduce phenomenon are
frequently studied by experts in an effort to discover the variables
preventing easy
leaking pen wrote:
That an experiment is reproducible is the cornerstone of the
scientific method. What, precisely, is your issue with the statement?
*Making* an experiment *more* reproducible is one important aspect of
the scientific method, but it not the be-all, end-all goal. Many
I wrote:
Many of the key experiments in high-energy physics are so difficult
to reproduce, nobody even tries. After one successful experiment
they declare victory. Examples include the top quark, the PPPL
tokamak, and of course, fission and fusion bombs.
The North Koreans recently
Jed sez:
...
Perhaps they could put a link on the page: Click here to
administer a painful shock to the USPS webmaster. Chances are it
wouldn't work, given their inability to implement web page features,
but it might give the reader a moment of psychological satisfaction.
- Jed
I believe
Regarding D + Pd cold fusion cathode conditions, Hora and Miley write
[1]: The screened deuterons are mutually repulsed by their Coulomb
field at distances less than 2 pm, but thanks to their screening are
moving like neutral neutrons. Any attraction by the Casimir effect
[29] is too small.
There's a famous psychological case we read about in college:
In an office cube floor, the temperature could never be set to please all.
Mgmt. Added thermostats at each cube, and morale improved. The thermostats
weren't connected.
-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL
Here is part of a message I just sent to some friends.
. . . This may sound strange coming from me, but I think it is
unreasonable for us to expect a congressman or government official to
support cold fusion research. In fact, I think it would be
irresponsible for a government official to
On May 29, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
In other words, the failure here is in the scientific community,
not in the national political leadership.
I suspect this is not entirely true. Some of the failure may be due
to lobbyists and political dogma. I doubt a reasonable
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 29 May 2007 12:28:49 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Regarding D + Pd cold fusion cathode conditions, Hora and Miley write
[1]: The screened deuterons are mutually repulsed by their Coulomb
field at distances less than 2 pm, but thanks to their screening are
- Original Message
From: Horace Heffner
The Hora and Miley article prompts suggestion of a CANR experiment.
That is to codeposit uranium with Pd by using a mixed palladium
chloride and uranium chloride electrolyte.
When the full story is revealed - or even before - if the
Horace Heffner wrote:
In other words, the failure here is in the scientific community,
not in the national political leadership.
I suspect this is not entirely true. Some of the failure may be due
to lobbyists and political dogma.
True. There is plenty of blame to go around. I should have
Vortexians;
I was in stupid mode when I failed to realize that 3 Li - would produce
1 O18. I'm wondering if this is the reaction Jones was talking about? If
this is the case, what kind of energy relase are we talking about? I
assume that O18 a rare isotope, so an isotopic analysis of gas
I keep on saying it: Bring CF to the people - both investors and users -
emphatically not the government. Once a decent application is created,
advertised and sold, the people will know what to do with it. Edison and Ford
understood that.
Keep good ideas away from the government teat.
P.
PHILIP WINESTONE wrote:
I keep on saying it: Bring CF to the people - both investors and users -
emphatically not the government. Once a decent application is created . . .
If a decent application could be created, we would not be having this
discussion. If a researcher could make a cell
**JOSEPH NEWMAN TO BE FEATURED ON THE SCIENCE CHANNEL
Energy machine inventor Joseph Newman will be featured on THE SCIENCE
CHANNEL four (4) times this coming Friday night Saturday early
morning/morning/night, June 1st June 2nd.
Please consult your local listings for details.
Also,
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Tue, 29 May 2007 20:09:54 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Vortexians;
I was in stupid mode when I failed to realize that 3 Li - would produce
1 O18. I'm wondering if this is the reaction Jones was talking about? If
this is the case, what kind of energy relase are we
20 matches
Mail list logo
