2009/10/28, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
...I believe that Earthtech has a very accurate
calorimeter. If they got no excess heat, that would make their
finding of no radiation quite understandable!
Not so. Detecting excess heat takes far more nuclear events than
detecting
Which can make a delta T of even 1/2 to one degree C. - seemingly low to the
outside observer, but really rather significant, when you consider the
actual number of nuclear events per second for the small amount of reactant.
Earthtech could possibly detect massive radiation if they would look for
At 08:40 AM 10/29/2009, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 03:43 AM 10/29/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/10/28, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
...I believe that Earthtech has a very accurate
calorimeter. If they got no excess heat, that would make their
finding of no radiation quite
On Oct 29, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Which can make a delta T of even 1/2 to one degree C. - seemingly
low to the
outside observer, but really rather significant, when you consider the
actual number of nuclear events per second for the small amount of
reactant.
Earthtech could
One thing worth emphasizing (in regard to UV lensing) is the effectiveness
of a properly sized pinhole array.
EUV is universally absorbed meaning that every possible transparent window
is problematic. Everyone except the nonwindow or pinhole. But the sizing
is critical. As is placement.
The
On Oct 29, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
One thing worth emphasizing (in regard to UV lensing) is the
effectiveness
of a properly sized pinhole array.
EUV is universally absorbed meaning that every possible
transparent window
is problematic. Everyone except the nonwindow or
One can only applaud the parts of Steve's post below which were
written by the Dr Jekyll in him, such as this excerpt:
I applaud your quest for truth, progress and improvement in our
energy options and I thank you for your care and interest along these
lines. I do hope that you and I can
Michel Jullian wrote:
(Abd . . . is obviously not on a crusade against the WL theory) . . .
More to the point, no one anywhere is on a crusade against any cold
fusion theory. The whole notion is ridiculous. People who disagree
with a theory simply ignore it. They may make a passing remark
Jed sez:
...
It may be that a few people who spend a lot of effort disputing
the Mills theory. I have heard there are some on the Mills
discussion group. But that is an unusual case. That theory
attracts a lot of interest.
...
You speculate it may be ???
It certainly has generated plenty
At 09:05 AM 10/27/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
Some of the Hyde parts, while obviously not always factual (Abd --I
gather he prefers to be called by this name, which is why Mr Hyde
called him Dennis-- is obviously not on a crusade against the WL
theory) are interesting and informative though.
Steven Krivit wrote:
Jed,
For made-up nonsense that is irrelevant and unimportant, you
seem to be reacting quite strongly.
You wish. Actually, I consider these reports unimportant. But it irks
me that you make light of Parkinson's disease and dismiss the
impositions it imposes on
Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax,
For a few years - you have been a great fan of New Energy Times. You have
been militant and aggressive on Wikipedia in your support of New Energy
Times and you were instrumental in getting New Energy Times removed from
the Wikipedia blacklist. You did this, I
Thanks for this very interesting report Steven.
Summary (correct me if I misunderstood) :
- Dardik's SuperWaves are a scam, their application to CF is entirely
PR stuff based on concepts stolen from the Widom Larsen theory for CF.
- McKubre and Fleishmann support Dardik and SuperWaves because
Michel,
Your summary is yours, I really can't and don't wish to comment on that.
Thank you for alerting me to the typo.
Steve
At 11:58 PM 10/21/2009, you wrote:
Thanks for this very interesting report Steven.
Summary (correct me if I misunderstood) :
- Dardik's SuperWaves are a scam,
At 07:08 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
Steven,
The summary of your article provided by Michel Jullian (below) shows
the impression your style creates. You are not helping yourself or the
field by this approach. First of all, some of your facts are wrong.
Mckubre is not on the nominating committee
Steven Krivit wrote:
With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that,
as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that,
as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep
things public and open.
Krivit's report is made-up nonsense plus some
Jed,
You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at nonfiction. Almost failed my
creative writing classes in high school.
Have a real nice day.
Steve
At 10:37 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a
journalist,
Uhh..no, that was supposed to say fiction not nonfiction. Where's
Michel Julian to proof my posts when I need him? ;)
Jed,
You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at fiction. Almost failed my
creative writing classes in high school.
Have a real nice day.
Steve
At 10:37 AM 10/22/2009,
Steven Krivit wrote:
You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at fiction. Almost failed
my creative writing classes in high school.
This is probably not a serious comment . . . But in any case, an
inability to write fiction is no indication that you are good at
writing non-fiction. On the
At 02:37 PM 10/22/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that,
as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that,
as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep
things public and open.
Jed,
For made-up nonsense that is irrelevant and unimportant, you seem to
be reacting quite strongly.
I presented the facts; you didn't like them -- you attacked the messenger
-- with your speculations.
If you can prove my facts to be wrong, then go ahead...
Otherwise, I will file your
At 04:06 PM 10/22/2009, Steven Krivit wrote:
Uhh..no, that was supposed to say fiction not nonfiction.
Where's Michel Julian to proof my posts when I need him? ;)
Krivit needs an editor more than he needs a proofreader.
Jed,
For made-up nonsense that is irrelevant and unimportant, you seem to
be reacting quite strongly.
I presented the facts; you didn't like them -- you attacked the messenger
-- with your speculations.
If you can prove my facts to be wrong, then go ahead...
Otherwise, I will file your
Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax,
If you can discuss something factual about my work, please do so. I'm more
than happy to discuss and debate facts.
If not, what you have written here amounts to nothing but a personal attack
and an expression of hatred. Anybody who knows me and my work can
At 02:02 AM 10/23/2009, Steven Krivit wrote:
I have found that when I expose or report truths that people don't
want exposed - or truths which some people just cannot face - if
they can't disprove my facts then they react just like you have done
- with invective and hostility, and attack the
25 matches
Mail list logo
