ected by a mass
spec. at all.
>
>Good point! Thanks for the clarification of my mis-calculation.
>
>
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does somet
Good point! Thanks for the clarification of my mis-calculation.
From: 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 reply to Brian Ahern&#
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
rn_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 showing the correlation of
e
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
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. This
>is what prompted Ma
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 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm
>>>
>>
>
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 measured.
>
>
What was the concentration of He-4 bef
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 als
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 ra
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.
3. The background He-4
Rothwell
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 5:48 PM
To: Vortex; c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries
A trusting soul over at
lenr-forum.com<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flenr-forum.com&data=02%
To: ROGER ANDERTON ; 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 the
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 shocki
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
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, digging
miss
everything with the certainty that you do.
Why do you think he is building a factory? As I reported elsewhere there is
evidence that he is doing so.
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
To: Vortex
Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject v
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 I am not capable of eval
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
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 7:25 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries
: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries
Jed, I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of
everything that Rossi has done.
>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 rathe
Jed, I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of
everything that Rossi has done.
A trusting soul over at lenr-forum.com wrote that science does not exclude
different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid ideas:
Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes
> different thinking.
With some example such as:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12
23 matches
Mail list logo
