On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Horace Heffner wrote: > On Jun 18, 2009, at 12:29 AM, William Beaty wrote: > > > > There's a 100% replicable CF experiment. People on other lists are > > trying it out. > > What lists?
Tap-L, Phys-L physics lists. He only attracted a few takers. He's sending out fresh CR39 and Oriani's nickel wire. > > Nobody on vortex is interested. (Really? Or was it just lost in > > the noise?) > > Yes, I saw it. If I were to work in the electrolysis regime, I would So maybe the lack of Vortex response to that message *isn't* caused by thread overload. I know it would have been in my own case. If someone here does some interesting work in their own lab, I'll often miss it, since I don't read all threads. Having each of us trying to add a prefix might work for awhile, but I know it's something I'd eventually forget, then stop using it. Needs a software solution. Instead of prefixes: - Vortex for normal stuff - Bortex for extreme OT, no rules - Cortex for actual testing being done in real time by vortex people - Dortex hmmm. only for antigravs based on 3rd time deriv of velocity! Aha! Vortex/Cortex messages could dump into the same archive, but with automatically added prefix. Subscribe to both, send both to your usual vortex email folder. Then it's still the same forum, but with an automated mechanism to control the subject prefixes. To get that prefix, just reply to one of those messages, or post to the other vortex addr. But with a difference: people could sort messages by prefix or by FROM addr. Or just ignore it and read everything. Or simply subscribe to just one section, and never see any of the others unless you looked at the archive. > > It looks to me like there's way too much traffic on vortex to read > > every single message continuously for months on end, much less > > clicking on linked articles. > > Personally, I'd prefer to skip a hundred threads a day than live with > extensive moderation and death of the group. This vortex doesn't change. And not moderation, any more than "vortexC is for torsion" needs moderation. > Notes on one of my variations on the SPAWAR approach, which amounts > to co-deposition on the sides of holes in a thin metal cathode. Thanks! Will peruse. (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
