Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
laws are understood by 99.9% of scientists and engineers. CF also
appears to violate some textbook laws of nuclear physics, although
there is
less agreement among experts about which laws it violates, and to what
extent
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms writes:
Mass and energy are only equivalent when energy is converted to
mass. When energy
exists only as energy, it does not have the property of mass.
That would be potential energy, I suppose, and my understanding is that it
does have mass. When
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated
7/23/2004 12:39:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Presumably
the ZPE is part of the universe just like the mass we see.
Yes, that is true. Given that,
we could detect it due to its gravitational influence. Hubble's red
shift
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated
7/23/2004 4:49:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Or
maybe it's the other way around! I get soo confused when I think
about gravity vs. acceleration!
You are not wrong. Gravity produces
a force. GM/rr
This sounds like
Frank, your emphasis is on conservation of momentum, which is important
but not sufficient. You also introduce the mechanism of sensing the existence
of a fixed field, which is irrelevant. I ask how a structure can
form when the time needed for one part to sense the characteristics of
another
An excellent presentation. I agree it would be good on the website.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf
- Jed
Horace Heffner wrote:
At 6:52 AM 8/19/4, Edmund Storms wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote:
As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all
that impressed.
Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out
, Edmund Storms wrote:
Horace, I seem to be having a hard time making my self understood.
Funny, I too feel I have not been able to make myself understood.
The effect
of a magnetic field, no matter how it is orientated, is an artifact of
calorimeter used.
In the Letts-Cravens experiment
a model.
I hope this explanation is clear.
Regards,
Ed
At 2:58 PM 8/20/4, Edmund Storms wrote:
2. An isoperibolic calorimeter has an artifact when a magnetic field is
applied.
Such fields change the internal thermal gradients so that the calibration no
longer applies. Therefore, any
Ed,
Thanks for your more detailed answer, which addresses several points of
interest in the Letts effect which were unclear from you published experiment,
and your previous messages. Perhaps we should even reserve judgement on this
name, the Letts effect, pending review of the similar work
What are you trying to accomplish, Mitchell? How is applying a pejorative
word to the reason your papers are not on the site going to get your papers
on the site? You might argue that some work is being censored
but your work is not being censored. We will never agree as to why
your previous
---BeginMessage---
I have a few question as a simple observer of things I know little about.
If the speed of light changed, would not the speed of the electron around
the nucleus also change? Would not the rate of reactions within nature
and within the body not change in proportion? In other
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms writes:
Pu238 emits a 5.5 MeV alpha with a 1/2 life of 87.7 y. This makes U234
which
decays by 4.8 MeW alpha with a 1/2 life of 2.46 x10^5 years. This makes
Th230
which decays by 4.7 MeV alpha with a 1/2 life of 7.54 x 10^4 years
Personally I do not believe all that is claimed, even in cold fusion
:-). I have seen such boulders on metal samples that clearly result
from the environment. The normal environment has all kinds of small
particles floating in the air, which can land on a sample and be
completely unnoticed until
Horace Heffner wrote:
At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote:
Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of Excitronics, but
your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two
errors. They claimed the aluminum resulted from transmutation and they
claimed
Horace Heffner wrote:
At 12:40 PM 11/16/4, Edmund Storms wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote:
Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of Excitronics, but
your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two
errors
Horace Heffner wrote:
Codeposition electrolysis using a weak carbolic acid, i.e. phenol, an
aromatic ring with attached OH, or oher organic compound, combined with
Li2SO4 and heavy water to form the electrolyte, and a Pd anode, may form on
the cathode surface a volume which supports a
To all,
Now the wait is over and we are provided with an evaluation of the DOE,
but not an evaluation of LENR. A cross section of experts used by the
DOE to evaluate all proposals submitted to this agency have demonstrated
for the world to see a profound lack of imagination and an indifference
This is a form letter that is sent in response to any such question. If the
physicist who
was interviewed responded, that would be important.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is a hysterical message about Physics Today. Frankly I am surprised
Physics Today responded at all. Maybe they are
NRL is now attempting to duplicate this work. This program was
undertaken well before the DoE review and apparently was unknown to the
reviewers. If, as expected, they replicate the Iwamura claims, the ball
game will be over.
Ed
George Holz wrote:
Hi Jed,
See:
This is one of many statements made by the reviewers that is incomplete
and based on confusion. The fact is that when solid palladium is used
as the cathode, time is required for it to acquire the required high
D/Pd ratio and time is required for the active material to plate on the
surface. If
Well Lew, here is an enterprising group that might be worth contacting
to see what they know.
Ed
Emeka Okafor wrote:
Experts provide practical perspective to a new and challenging
scientific field.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/12/prweb186609.htm
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:48:27 -0500, you wrote:
Dr. Storms wrote: I think you all are missing the point of the missile
defense system. It
is to defend us from China in 10 years, not NK now.
Possibly, however the premature deployment will inhibit only the
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:42:02 -0700, you wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:48:27 -0500, you wrote:
Dr. Storms wrote: I think you all are missing the point of the missile
defense system. It
is to defend us from China in 10 years, not NK
Jed Rothwell wrote:
John Steck wrote:
I do not think that conclusion precludes fatalism however. Our future is
not written in stone somewhere. We exercise free will, but it would be
naive to think we are not largely predictable because of severe influences
past and present.
This strikes me as
Dr. Swartz, if you have a problem with what Jed or I have done with your
papers, take it up with us personally. Do not waste the time of
everyone on Vortex. They can not solve your problem. God knows, Jed has
tried and failed.
Ed Storms
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 09:52 AM 1/26/2005, Jed
I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino
explanation.
1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when
accumulated hydrinos are returned to normal.
2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as
rapidly as normal H diffuses to the
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
We publish all papers that can be understood and are of value to the
field. As anyone can see, our standards are rather low, but not absent.
Ahem! I would prefer to say our standards are rather broad minded or
perhaps forgiving.
Our standards are low
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:53:23 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
I don't understand how instantly is possible. Two entities must get
together. This takes time.
Of course it does, however that time is very short on human scales, provided that the
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:51:49 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having
energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go
up, and ionization to occur with a
RC Macaulay wrote:
Interesting subject
- Original Message -
From: RC Macaulay mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Christian Fellowship mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Role of God in government
The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to
Thanks, Steve. Hume did a good job. Too bad it had no effect on the
election.
Ed
Steven Krivit wrote:
Ed,
I think this a follow-up thread to that of Bill Moyers discussing the
relationship between environment, religion and our government.
I'll add my $0.01 (devalued dollar, you know.)
-This-
Just a few words so as to reduce your feeling of being ignored.
revtec wrote:
What is our collective goal regarding the commercialization of CF?
Is it to reduce the level of CO2 emissions to reverse global warming?
Yes, this is an important goal.
Is it to improve the quality of life by
I'm not an economist, but I have been doing considerable reading about
the problem. The Chinese can do the following:
1. They can use dollars obtained from providing products to Wal-Mart et
al. to buy oil and other commodities that are sold in dollars. This
will drive up the prices of these
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
As China's Master Plan to Destroy America manifesto
outlines, the multifaceted battle plan recommended by the
Chinese military has taken shape...Financially: Using
Currency as the Primary Weapon...[snip]
I think that is ridiculous. No one is more
In case some of you are still not too bored about economic discussion,
here is a very good article about how we got into the mess we are in.
The combination of low interest rates, outsourcing, and deficit spending
both in government and industry has created a witches brew that is
expected to
Once again, we are being treated to one more example of exaggeration and
BS. The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot fusion occurring in bubbles,
not cold fusion. The rates are very low and the method would not work
if power output were at commercial levels, yet this work gets attention.
In
I think it's easier not to confuse cold fusion with hot fusion by
introducing the Beta-ether concept. We have enough trouble just talking
about what is known without introducing what is unknown. Cold fusion
describes nuclear reactions that take place in special atomic lattices
without
revtec wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: Evangelical environmentalists
revtec wrote:
I'm all for sound science including CF research. I have spent hundreds
of
hours
thomas malloy wrote:
Ed Storms responded'
Once again, we are being treated to one more example of exaggeration
and BS. The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot fusion occurring in
bubbles, not cold fusion.
I don't understand how hot fusion in bubbles differs from what the other
LERN
thomas malloy wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
Ed Storms responded'
Once again, we are being treated to one more example of exaggeration
and BS. The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot fusion occurring in
bubbles, not cold fusion.
I don't understand how hot fusion in bubbles differs from what the
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:20:25 -0700:
Hi Ed,
[snip]
Actually Robin, hydrino production has been ruled out. Cells are now
sealed and contain a recombiner. If hydrinos were produced and did not
react with oxygen to reform water,
Dear Frank,
I totally agree with you. The time for being nice has past. The DOE
has shown gross dishonesty and the energy situation is getting out of
hand. The Manifesto is just the start. With a little luck and enough
effort, we hope to get the public concerned. However, I have no
Keith Nagel wrote:
Frank writes:
You wrote I asked Mel Miles whether he thinks it
is over the top. Goodness me! You sound like
Ned Flanders. All credit to Mel Miles for his
gutsey reply. Why on earth did it depress you.
I can't answer for Ed or Jed, but it depresses me because
it's a sign of
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mike Carrell wrote:
joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising
to, say
100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857
capcitors. By
comparison, batteries look pretty good.
. . .
You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube.
Apparently, Kirk does not give up easily even when the facts that
dispute his claim are presented to him on several occasions. His
mechanism is at odds with observation because recombination does not
occur on the cathode surface, as has been demonstrated by measurement
and by simple logic.
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
So I ask, what is the basic process in the PAGD effect? For example,
how can moving ions extract energy from their surroundings? Why must
the ions and/or electrons only move in a certain way, as caused by the
unique applied voltage?
I think the point
Last week my 10-year-old Volvo station wagon needed an expensive valve
job. It turned out it cost 4000 bucks! Anyway, I thought about getting a
new car and I spec'ed them out. My car gets ~20 mpg city and 30 mpg
highway. I was disgusted to find that the new station wagons get 18 mpg
city and
Well Jed, if this the worst they can do, I'm not worried. In fact, they
might have also said that my next car would run on hydrogen or
french-fry grease with as much sarcasm. Actually, I expect my next car
will be a hybrid Diesel running on biofuel mixed with a fuel made from
oil and coal.
The my God is better than your God approach to religion disgusts and
frightens me. This use of God is only a thin disguise used by one group
to justify taking life, liberty, and property from another group. For
example, the white race thought they had the God given right to enslave
the blacks
Like in science, the conclusion one reaches depends on the assumptions
made at the beginning. The beliefs of each religion and the rules
supposed to be God-given suffer from this same limitation.
In this article the author makes the argument that the rules of the
Catholic Church, i.e. no
Kyle Mcallister wrote:
Vortexians,
OK, this is getting a little crazy-go-nuts.
1. Margaret Sanger was responsible for some good, yes.
She was also crazy. Not the kind of person I would
want to spend much time with. Very pro-eugenics. If
you support that, then congratulations, go build
yourself a
thomas malloy wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
snip
Lets start over at the beginning. There are these two super human
entities who both want to be G-d, Unfortunately there's only room for
one, One's going to toss the other into a black hole, him and all his
followers with him.
Now this all
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
No. As I suggested, trace amounts of radioactive material migrate out
via the instrument leads. See:
http://www.slate.com/id/2151214/nav/tap2/
Even if small amounts of radioactive material did come out via the
instrument leads, or even
Let me throw my two cents into this discussion. Of course some people
doing cold fusion have made mistakes and reported bad data. This is not
the issue. When this happen in normal science, people go back to the lab
and try again. In cold fusion, the error is used to discredit the whole
idea.
In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more
real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean,
cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by
hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the
responsibility to
. relate when you last
witnessed the effect personally Ed?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
In answer to your question, cold
.
The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject
the idea will look like fools. Your choice.
Regards,
Ed
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion
Dr. Michael Shermer
CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael
: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many
publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly
evidence of excess heat?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess
Michel Jullian wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
The input in my case was about 0.5 watt with 2.5 watts excess. The ratio
looks
be welcome Jed. TIA
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Edmund Storms wrote:
Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy
Michel Jullian wrote:
- Jed
I think you mean the ratio of chemical energy out (energy stored in
electrolysis products H2 and O2, which you can recover as heat by recombining
them) to electrical energy in. This ratio is close to but cannot exceed one,
and not only won't it make any useful
PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the two
quotes.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL
@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:13 PM
Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr.
Michael Shermer)
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo
The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word
electrolysis is being used correctly. He and I agree that the word
describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Thus,
H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed
because it is chemically
Michel Jullian wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word
electrolysis is being used
to their misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my
contributions to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more generally for
calling a cat a cat (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart
ass Terry)
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED
: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
Michel Jullian wrote:
No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating
I suggest Park has simply reiterated his belief that the Jones claims
are real but not what Pons and Fleischmann discovered. This has been the
attitude of the skeptics from the very beginning. In short, I see no
change. I wrote to both Park and Garwin, describing by book and asking
if they
For those who are interested in knowing what has been discovered about
cold fusion, or better yet the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, I call your
attention to the latest book on the subject. This book contains 1070
citations to publications up to 2006 and describes all aspects of the
phenomenon. In
Interesting that the ACS seems to create more press interest than does
the APS where the same papers were given a month earlier. Nevertheless,
this exposure is good news and will give other writers the courage to
say something positive about CF.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is an article in
This makes no sense at all. The sonofusion work has no hope of being
practical and the issue of reproducibility is trivial. Why would
Congress get involved? If the oil industry were worried about cold
fusion, many methods much closer to a practical device than this one are
being investigated.
Since you mention this problem, I would like to remind those who own a
PC that all of these problems can be eliminated by getting an iMac that
runs both system OS-X and Windows. The Mac can be used on the internet
with Netscape, which avoids most of the nasties and the Windows version
can be
Thanks Jed for trying to keep such people honest. You do a masterful
job. You might ask the dear Professor a question about honesty since
his article was about moral and honest behavior in science. Clearly, to
publish fraudulent information supporting a discovery is wrong. Is it
also not
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
I'm surprised, Jones, that the Widom/Larsen theory is even being
considered. This theory has some serious faults that have not been
addressed by the authors I summarize a few below which are extracted
from a recent paper of mine. In brief, a theory needs to not only be
consistent with what is
It arrived at my end.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
I uploaded a message from Russ George three times, but it never showed
up. Did anyone here see it? I am not going to repeat it because
something might be filtering it, at my end or Eskimo.com.
- Jed
To those who are interested, my book The Science of Low Energy Nuclear
Reaction has been released by the World Scientific Publishing Co. and
copies are now on a boat to the US from Singapore. If you order now, you
should get your copy in a few weeks. Of course you can order through the
12:32 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
To those who are interested, my book The Science of Low Energy Nuclear
Reaction has been released by the World Scientific Publishing Co. and
copies are now on a boat to the US from Singapore. If you order now, you
should get your copy in a few weeks. Of course you
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 02:26 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote:
Swartz I do not understand, except for his comments about flow
calorimetry, which are wrong.
Continuum electromechanics and engineering may be foreign to Jed Rothwell,
but they are not wrong.
Our
Since Swartz has once again brought up his obsession about censorship at
LENR, this gives me an opportunity to clarify the criteria used to put
papers on the LENR website. For the sake of this discussion, the website
has two parts: a listing of over 3000 papers having some relevance to
cold
Michel, you seem to miss the point to this discussion. The LENR website
is whatever Jed wants it to be. We started the site and Jed operates it
without pay for the benefit of the field. In addition, he applies the
highest standards to this operation. Yet, when Swartz raise the issue of
Dear Horace,
The book is available from www.worldscientific.com and can be obtain by
airmail in a few days. The books being distributed by WalMart are in
transit from Singapore were they are printed.
Ed
Horace Heffner wrote:
Walmart last notified me the shipping date was July 28, 2007 for
Hi Horace,
The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is
because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of
water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the
speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This
is
.
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Hi Horace,
The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is
because pure water is essentially an insulator
Jed, I was tempted to wade in to this fight, but I think you not only
made the necessary points but showed that this person is not worth the
trouble. She is a good writer, but her style is very common these days
because it gets uneducated people's attention. She and Robert Park have
a lot in
For those of you who have been following this story and who are not
overloaded with things to worry about, here is some interesting information.
Ed
Is USAF Stand Down To
Find A Missing Nuke?
Someone, operating under a special chain of command within
the United States Air Force, just stole a
Yes Jones, to your credit you first pieced together this information and
alerted us on Vortex. However, the essay I sent put together a great
deal more background information that gives the impression, at least to
me, that the writer knows what he is talking about and has information
Keith Nagel wrote:
Hey Ed,
You write:
It is impossible to make a null run once deuterium has been introduced
into the system. Unless heroic efforts are made, some deuterium remains
as a background, as detected by the RGA.
I rather suspect it would be. OTOH, many of the past LENR papers
Jones Beene wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
This is landmark research. Modified branching ratios as well as
Coulomb barrier defeating at intermediate energies are both clearly
demonstrated in what appears to be a highly repeatable protocol. The
monoenergetic 0.8±0.1 MeV electrons are a
Horace Heffner wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:
Storms, E. and B. Scanlan. Radiation Produced By Glow Discharge In
Deuterium. in 8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen /
Deuterium Loaded Metals. 2007. Sicily, Italy.
Jones Beene wrote:
--- Nick Palmer wrote:
Whether you turn coal into syngas or methanol or
whatever, you are still desequestrating fossil
carbon.
That is OK so long as it is net carbon neutral.
If you turn biomass into syngas then that solution is
carbon neutral. If you turn syngas
Jones Beene wrote:
--- Edmund Storms wrote:
Actually, using CO2 from burning coal to make
biofuel is not carbon neutral unless the resulting
biomass is never burned.
Well it does substitute for OPEC oil, if that is the
bottom line - but if you want to get extremely
precise, then you
The cold fusion process does not produce gamma for several reasons.
Immediate release of gamma does not occur because such a reaction is not
effective in conserving the momentum of the reaction. Instead, if a
reaction is to occur at all, two charged particle must be emitted. Of
course, some of
Taubes can't seem to get anything right. He did a bad job on CF and now
he can't even understand the issues about health. When are people going
to ignore this idiot?
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
The latest from Taubes:
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/70314/
Note my response at the bottom
As usual, the debate about which race is smarter misses the important
issue. The so called smarts of humans is made of different features.
Some people are smart at music, others are good at math, some are poor
spellers but can write well. In other words, we each have many ways we
are smart and
The work of Taleyarkhan has no relationship to cold fusion or LENR. He
is trying to cause hot fusion in a collapsing bubble and claiming
success using neutron detection. LENR occurs in a solid and does not
emit neutrons
Ed.
thomas malloy wrote:
Steven Krivit investigated the Taleyarkhan
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Ed Storms wrote me a not saying we should not re-hash stale debates in the Knol
article, and we should not try to make the skeptics case for them, because
that's like trying to make the case for the Flat Earth Society. I agree, but
that is not quite what I had in mind.
1 - 100 of 1275 matches
Mail list logo
