Jones, Thanks for the p-w history lesson, and I was only baiting you guys when I made the comment, "And y'all thought that poly-water *was* bogus science." I've followed vortex-l on and off since its inception and always admired the openmindedness of the gents at the dime box saloon. What did you think of Dr. Pollack's lecture? What makes me angry is how science (dare I qualify that with western science) seems to be more of a hindrance that a solution these days. Also, fear of 'destroying' your career, or fear of what your colleagues might think, because you choose to explore something at the 'fringe' is not something that a scientist should be concerned about. Yeah, I know, that's too idealistic for humans at this stage of their evolution... -Mark
_____ From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 7:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fun stuff... Mark, At least on this forum, where water anomalies have very special significance- there are a few open-minds who have thought that the final jury verdict on polywater was never reached. Yes, it is true that most agree that the Franks book is the best authoritative history (Franks, F., Polywater. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1981) where at the end- the Russian researchers themselves "concluded" that their initial findings were incorrect and retracted. And - it should be quipped, probably avoided a "vacation" in Siberia thereafter (this episode was a great 'cold war' embarrassment To Russian science). However, there have been subsequent experiments of a totally different kind, or with better controls - which do show strange properties of water (and especially ice) under pressure. AS you may know, there about a dozen ice phases, including the infamous ice-9. Some of these have more strength than many metals (and of course more strength than most polymers as well). Most of this discussion is in the vortex archives - from a couple of years ago. Frank Grimer - who had developed a theory of aether effects being compressive (beta-aether) at the atomic level, suggested ways that the original Russian claim may not have been as incorrect as we were led to believe. IOW - while it is true that the original Russian claim was no doubt "inflated" and was the result of poor technique where leachants from glass capillary tubes were responsigle for most of the "polywater" kind of binding which was seen, that may not be the end of story. There could be more to it, but like everything else in science these days, it would take a top-level lab to find find out, and invariably these are staffed with folks who believe that jury has decided correctly, end-of-story, even if that jury was not capable at the time of fully "peering" into alternative explanations. Jones ----- Original Message ---- From: Mark Iverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Now that we're back onto the fun and interesting topics... And y'all thought that poly-water *was* bogus science... Well, as Bones should have said, "He's not dead yet, Jim!" HYPERLINK "http://uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=22222"; \nhttp://uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=22222 Dr. Gerald Pollack on crystalline water. Fascinating and thought-provoking lecture... Enjoy! -Mark No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1715 - Release Date: 10/8/2008 7:19 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1715 - Release Date: 10/8/2008 7:19 PM
