Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

by a mass spec. at all. > >Good point! Thanks for the clarification of my mis-calculation. > > >From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com> >Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: CMNS: R

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Good point! Thanks for the clarification of my mis-calculation. From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries In

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

In reply to Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +: Hi, [snip] >I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is >difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that >amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

To: m...@theworld.com Cc: ahern_br...@msn.com Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries Mitchell, Thank-you for defending my C/F work against the false allegations by Brian Ahern. I would like to add the following: 1. Radiation was measured in the 1990 experiments s

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

H LV wrote: I mean what was the concentration of He-4 in the vessel before the start of > the experiment? > Let me recommend you read the reviews and then the original sources by Miles for that info. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

OHO).   Bob Cook                                                 From: ROGER ANDERTON Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; c...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries   >There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

I mean what was the concentration of He-4 in the vessel before the start of the experiment? Harry On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:42 PM, H LV wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> Brian Ahern

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Brian Ahern wrote: > >> > >> >> > > 3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm >> > > Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak > would be far above the amounts Miles

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

I wrote: 3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm >> > > Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak > would be far above the amounts Miles measured. > > > >> 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB ! >> > > As I said, a leak would be hundreds of times higher. > A leak would

RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

From: Brian Ahern > I would like to put some perspective on the Mel Miles presentation. 1. No radiation accompanied the He-4… [snip]… A simpler explanation is that the excess energy was that described by Gerald Pollack in: The fourth phase of water. That avoids the need to explain the lack of

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Brian Ahern wrote: > > 1.No radiation accompanied the He-4 > Yes, that is true of all cold fusion experiments. If there were radiation, it would not be cold fusion. > 2. The excess energy was about 100 milliwattsWatts for several hours > The peak was around 500 mW.

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

I would like to put some perspective on the Mel Miles presentation. 1.No radiation accompanied the He-4 2. The excess energy was about 100 milliwattsWatts for several hours 3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB ! 5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls

RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

der...@btinternet.com>; vortex-l@eskimo.com; c...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries Roger- I agree with your timely addition regarding "science" excluding different thinking. I would note that Hagelstein's editorial cited below uses t

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

For me the most shocking case is about Semmelweis and before him Alexander Gordon de Aberdeen. http://www.antimicrobe.org/h04c.files/history/Lancet%20ID-Alexander%20Gordon%20puerperal%20sepsis%20and%20modern%20theories%20of%20infection%20control%20Semmelweis%20in%20perspective.pdf The most

RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

om: ROGER ANDERTON<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; c...@googlegroups.com<mailto:c...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries >There are

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

A follow-up posting by me: Cold fusion is not unique. There are many, many examples of previous claims that were rejected even though the proof was rock solid, and there was no reason to doubt the claims. Lasers, the MRI and h. pylori are good examples. I have studied much of this history,

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

0 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: Jed, I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of everything that Rossi has done. You imply that I must accept all new claims withou

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Adrian Ashfield wrote: Jed, I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of > everything that Rossi has done. You imply that I must accept all new claims without question. That would be as irrational as rejecting all of them out of hand. You imply that

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

So far so good, said the man after jumping off the top of a skyscraper. Why do you suppose Rossi is building a factory? -Original Message- From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 7:25 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries Jed, I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of everything that Rossi has done.

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This >is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral >by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by >convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Jed, I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of everything that Rossi has done.