On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea, good article.
I disagree. Terrible idea, terrible article. Estimates are that $200 M has
been spent on cold fusion research in 22 years. If that's not enough to
generate unequivocal evidence of *heat* from nuclear
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting. Long on theory. Short on data.
Long on obfuscation.
A few things that struck me about that presentation:
Slide 13:
Zawodny is up front about the energy needed for electron capture by a
proton,
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
The only set of slide notes in the presentation said the following about
WLT:
“The theory makes specific, testable predictions. Predictions that can be
inexpensively verified.”
Well, one
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
JC wrote:
“Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any
idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical
effect is allowed by a breakdown in a
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
The nickel is a power. It's pretty hard to imagine a preferred emission
direction with randomly oriented reactants.
True, but again, this is unknown physics,
Right. Anything can be explained that way...
and the
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Joshua wrote:
“So, random atomic motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is
somehow supposed to be concentrated by a factor of much more than a million
by some resonant phenomenon.”
** **
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
** **
I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement,
“Resonance is very much a part of brute force physics.”
** **
I think I need to explain resonance to you…
Resonance is an interesting
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is clearly demonstrable that there exist mechanisms (of unknown type)
in room temperature condensed matter to create at least 10's of keV, check
out the rather fascinating following video:
I wouldn't say
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
Right. Anything can be explained that way...
Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory.
Except that when Planck tried
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, he demonstrated 30 L of water that remained at boiling
temperatures for four hours with no input. [...] Neither you nor any other
skeptic has ever given us a single viable, scientific reason to doubt these
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
He has no magical ability to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does you no good if the foil has an emissivity of
10% or less. That would give less than 50W emission for 60C surface
temperature in
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
That is incorrect. Many people have looked inside these devices. The
photographs of the Ottoman size device instantly rule out any possibility
of a chemical or other conventional source of heat.
Only to your
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
The simple fact is, that given the SAME amount of ‘push’ at regular
intervals, a resonant system will achieve what appears to be extreme
amplitudes whereas the non-resonant push of the SAME amount of force,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
I never said it was ‘exotic’…
And I never attempted to explain something as simply claiming it was a
resonant phenomenon…
Stop putting words in my mouth.
This whole discussion started with your
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
I would have thought with my clear statements about using extremely
intense magnetic fields and smashing particles head on at extremely high
velocities, it would have been obvious that I was referring to
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
JC:
Thx for the explanations, relevant or not, however, I still think that the
discussion wandered from my initial point, which was, given proper
conditions, one can disrupt the natural balance within a
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together… there is NO
resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual
interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
For laymen, quantum mechanics (QM) is very hard to understand; even
Einstein had trouble with it.
Einstein had objections to its implications and apparent incompleteness. He
was completely comfortable with how it was used to
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
** **
“Collisions can be resonant too…”
** **
Please explain…
**
Here's an abstract from PRL, which I found with 10 seconds of google. Have
you heard of it?
Resonant collisional energy
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Nope, let me look into it... thx.
I meant google. Have you heard of google.
Don't bother looking in to the particular resonant collisions. It's just an
example of where collision energy can be tailored
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
“QM is the most predictive theory over the widest range of dimensions in
history. It has certain odd implications, but in its simple application as
tool to predict the outcome of experiments, it is perfectly well understood
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Safety. You want to be sure the heat will be removed even if it
increases a great deal, the way it did on Feb. 10.
Ah. The favorite excuse, second only to secret sauce.
But the heat exchanger had no effect on the
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually
contradicts full vaporization.
All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
Focardi said also not much above environment.
Possibly there was a dentist or internist doctor or a antique colortv in
neighbourhood.
As I reported here, Celani said the burst was so
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT
THE TOP OF THE SCALE,
Means nothing. What scale was it on? Did a hyperthyroid patient (treated
with I-131) walk past? It takes very little to put some meters off-scale.
And yes, some (older)
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is another comment from Mats Lewan
As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a
possible explanation in itself.You simply would need an additional heat
source inside to have water
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions. I agree
with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water
overflow.
Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were,
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect you will take wild notions like mine more seriously if much
more time passes without any absolutely definitive determination of Rossi's
veracity.
I consider the Oct. 6
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been
faithful to that end.
That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty
that LENR is occurring.
Why should we assume that
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but
Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found the
flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no need to postulate energy storage in the megawatt plant
demonstration. It is only necessary to consider that Rossi's client may be
fictitious and that the engineer may
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Fortunately, it is predicated on immutable laws of physics and first
principle observations made by dozens of people who I know to be honest.
No. The laws of physics and ordinary chemistry can explain all the
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I consider the Oct. 6 test definitive.
Many capable scientists and engineers do not agree.
I have not heard from any yet.
How to break this to you? They don't care about you.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential
methods to cheat we may not have thought of.
You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you*
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
A person who thinks it is possible to keep water at boiling temperatures
for four hours at a poorly insulated vessel is not capable, by definition.
By any method? In a 100 kg
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can
invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a
university,
Your statement applies to
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Now, do you sincerely think that the large generator was supplying the
heat energy to vaporize the water?
I don't have sincere thoughts about anything on this subject. It could be,
and that weakens Rossi's case. Those
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course you are making a good point that they did use extra equipment to
ensure that the steam was very dry. The question is what is the dryness of
the steam before it entered those devices? Do you have any reference
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The pressure must be established within the boiler so I guess the hotter
steam does not make its way back to the boiler. Is it likely that some
form of check valve is used at the throttle? If that were possible, then
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT. I see
no reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made
to measure the water and some was captured.
But we don't know how
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Give the poor guy a break.
You should give him a break about the trap.
He measured the input flow rate accurately. You and I and everyone else
would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones.
You mean like Newton's laws trump relativity and QM?
If calorimetry and thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you
cannot point to the newer laws
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote:
From NextBigFuture:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/**12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-**
presenting-on.htmlhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/brian-ahern-will-not-be-presenting-on.html
This is unexpected. Does anybody
Krivit has put up the abstract for Takahashi's paper at the JCF-12 meeting.
In it he proposes a WL-like electron capture by a proton. He claims the
energy threshold for this reaction is 272 keV, and that it is exceeded by
600 keV electrons in his magic lattice.
Could someone explain how they get
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
So there was an uninspected volume of about 30 cube centimeters cube.
Right. That's what I said. There is no way equipment in such a small cube
can explain the heat. I said: They
Krivit has written another smug, self-satisfied, sneery, sarcastic piece
about the Widom Larsen theory. I posted a reply in the comments, but of
course it won't pass moderation, so I'll post it here as well:
Although I think you are sincere, and your motives are true, as is quite
clear in your
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Houkes is right. Live with it.
When you no longer have to insist repeatedly that something is right, there
might be a chance that it in fact is.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you read what I wrote about this? What I wrote SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES?!?
Unfortunately repetition does not make it true.
Although some experts question these results, most believe that the reactor
must have produced
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
1) We don't know the flow rate of the primary, but Rossi says it's 15
l/h, and you've never known him to lie, so let's assume 15 l/h, or 4.17 g/s
I don't think this can be right, because this is already
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Akito Takahashi, a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Osaka
University, and now affiliated with Technova Inc., is shifting his thinking
about low-energy nuclear reactions.
For two decades, Takahashi, a LENR
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It means we acknowledge the possibility of error or fraud, and *then we
move on* to the rest of the discussion.
Lawrence already showed how silly this claim is. You repeatedly say there
is no chance of fraud; that the
I'm coming to this discussion a little late, I know, and I'll probably
repeat points others have covered, but as I read through the nonsense
Rothwell writes, I can't carry on to the next nonsensical paragraph until
I've dealt with the previous, so I'll post my thoughts as I work through
it. If you
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I was assuming that nearly all of the heat is stored in water, and that
heat stored in the core is insignificant because it is metal, and most
metals have about 10 times lower specific heat than water. I was leaving
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If you trust there was water flowing thorough at the rate reported by
Rossi, then replace 4 L every 15 minutes as I originally suggested:
This seems wrong. The pump is rated at 12L/h, and at the end of the run the
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If you wish to disprove these claims, you must demonstrate by
conventional means that you can keep a reactor of this size at boiling
temperatures for 4 hours, while it remains too hot to touch.
There is no need to
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
This theory has no bearing on the results. The theory may be wrong, but
the technique has been independently tested, and it works.
So they claim. But the demonstrations are not impressive. I'm not aware of
any
Ransompw is desperate to justify his faith in Rossi, but this experiment is
hardly the one to do it, for several reasons:
1) If half the liquid is escaping the hose as steam as ransom claims, then
there should be a flow of gas at the output close to 1 L/s. There is no way
the gas coming out of
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, if the water was in the mythical state discussed here in which it is
90% liquid and 10% vapor, the liquid portion would definitely fall into the
bucket. The only way it could not have reached the bucket would be
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand and agree with all the reasons but the problem I see is
accounting for the water. But how much water? I can't really tell what
Lewan measured.
It's pretty simple. Lewan measured about 11 liters going in to
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched.
A bit? How would the water from this reach the end of the hose without
forming drops and becoming an
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
Lewan's 2nd test in april adequately measured the output energy to
establish O/I of over 3/1. Since steam quality and output measurements have
been questioned and used as a basis to argue that the various Rossi tests
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude wrote:
So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't
violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to
travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to
empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a
meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel Rocha wrote:
BTW, the vertical component of the exit tube of my humidifier is only 5cm
long...
Mine too. As I said, I think you could use a plastic bag to funnel the
vapor into a hose.
Be sure to mix it
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
He did that! What are you talking about?!? He has made the thing
self-sustain from internally generated heat for 4 hours.
It's not self-sustaining if you have to cycle the input power, and Rossi
has admitted that the
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo wrote:
Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month
capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic?
Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous
heat, 4
This went to personal mail, so I'm forwarding to the list:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Ransom Wuller rwul...@peaknet.net wrote:
Sure, but the output after traveling through meters of hose also had to
then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature.
It's exactly what
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13
2011
As usual, he points out
1) the absurdity of breaching the Coulomb barrier in ordinary fusion, which
would take something approaching 100 keV for
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, it continues in self-sustaining mode far beyond the limits of
chemistry,
Not more than a few per cent on *this* side of the limits of chemistry.
and the energy used to reheat it is far less than the
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I calibrated the thermocouple in a pot of boiling water before the test
and it was 99.6 deg C. That’s all you need to know. It’s in the report.
The temperatures +/- a degree or two within boiling are not informative.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:
Am 13.12.2011 23:21, schrieb ecat builder:
Hi All,
Just a brief update on the replication attempt by Chan. Chan is an
anonymous poster who claims to have replicated the Rossi reaction
using powders on two builder
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:26 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Joshua,
I believe, Zawodny does explain the creation of ULM neutrons through the
plasmonic creation of heavy electrons. See (slide 16) of
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/2010-Zawodny-AviationUnleashed.pdf
That's not
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
http://www.heise.de/tp/**artikel/35/35803/1.htmlhttp://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35803/1.html
English translation
http://translate.google.com/**translate?sl=detl=enjs=n**
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The other tests cannot be faked as far as I know. No skeptic has come up
with a plausible method. After all this time, I do not think any skeptic
will come up with anything. At least, not with anything that can be
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
This experiment supports my contention that entanglement, a key mechanism
in the cold fusion process, can be broadcast from one entangled ensemble
to induce entanglement in another ensemble even at high temperatures.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
You ignore the central fact about this test which is that the reactor
remained at boiling temperatures for four hours with no input power.
Big deal. It weighs 100 kg. Ten kg is enough to stay at boiling for 40
hours,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline monotonically,
very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet this heat increased
during the event.
Not true. If the inside is hotter than the outside,
The whole thing is related to pseudoscience and ignorance, and it's all
relevant. Here it is:
1. HACKS: SHODDY PRESS COVERAGE OF SCIENCE.
The Leveson Inquiry into the standards and ethics of the UK press, headed
by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, was prompted by the News of the World phone-
hacking
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Most confirmed skeptics refuse to read anything.
It's not refusal. It's that they are not interested. Most skeptics are
satisfied that if the grandiose claims were real, simple and obvious
demonstrations would not only
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Oh come now. I have dealt with fraud by pointing that Yugo's claims of
stage magic is not falsifiable.
I don't know who you think is convinced by that. Of course it's
falsifiable. Just run the experiment long enough
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The power between 150 and 250 shown in the cooling loop is more or less
stable, meaning the thing has reached the terminal temperature. It has
achieved a balance between input and output.
It's stable because it's
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self contradictions,
impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and explanations that matter. All
the blather from the peanut gallery is irrelevant, except possibly
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my
fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate?
You might also consider reversible metal-hydride reactions.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than Talbot Chubb every researcher I have discussed this with
believes most of the claims.
Not many on record though. It will be interesting if the ecat comes to
nothing, to see how they will rationalize their
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a problem of logic, as I explained to Yugo. An assertion that cannot
be tested or falsified cannot be debated. I cannot dispute it. Or agree
with it, for that matter. It is meaningless.
This sounds like the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
At 11:08 AM 12/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I need to add phase-change salts (and possibly even ceramic bricks) to my
fakes paper. Can you give me / point me to a likely candidate?
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable,
Resorting to misunderstood rules is the refuge of people who have no good
arguments left. Falsifiability just means it should be possible to
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can't think of a specific way this EXPERIMENTAL scientist's work
could have jumped the tracks, then you have no basis to challenge the
conclusions.
First of all, there are many specific ways suggested to
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Then I suggest you read Christensen and some other books about business.
Some of these ideas are complicated. You have to do your homework.
An amazing new revolutionary technology promising to replace fossil
fuels...
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Charles Hope
lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote:
It's not relevant, because his criticism is against innumeracy, which
applies to such delusions as astrology and homeopathy, but not cold fusion,
where the most serious advocates are scientists, who certainly know
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope
lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote:
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on
the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
There is an example that is interesting.
Gravitational wave detection.
As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection
has been done yet.
Doesn't fit the question though, since the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
being properly debunked?
Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments;
they
crave them.
This is complete bullshit. Most
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Geocentrism took over 1000 years to debunk.
But considering it was accepted by the mainstream, it was not a
pathological science.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more
likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this
speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man.
Who the hell cares?
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night
to feed his family.
He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, no.
Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time.
Too much
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted
account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius
in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history,
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:
This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get
hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up
some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it
apparently contribute to this list is trashing the
FPE.
On 12/19/2011 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:
jedrothw...@gmail.com** wrote:
He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a
lighthearted account
301 - 400 of 906 matches
Mail list logo
