Gentlemen : Will some kind soul suggest from where to buyspectrum analysis tubes, filled with spectreoscopically pure rare and other gases with side tubes for experimentations.
Robert Vadhera On 11/18/10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2990888&postcount=17 > >>Re: General consensus on Cold Fusion better known as "Low Energy >>Nuclear Reactions" L >> >>>Originally Posted by Abd >>>Lomax<http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2990858#post2990858> >>>Storms is quite conservative. >> >>I don't think the following quote from his 2010 review paper can be >>called "conservative:" >>Starting in 1963, L.C. Kervran (1963, 1972, 1980) proposed that >>living organisms could create elements they needed by transmuting >>available elements. This idea was widely rejected for lack of >>believable data and because it seemed impossible. In 1993, Thompkins >>and Byrd (1993) expanded on the idea in the book "The Secret Life of >>Plants". In 1992, Komaki (1992, 1993) at the Biological and >>Agricultural Research Institute in Shiga-ken, Japan undertook a >>study of molds and yeasts when the organisms were denied essential >>elements in their culture. They attempted to determine if the >>necessary elements could be created by transmutation. Using modern >>analytical tools, these living organisms were shown to increase the >>concentrations of potassium, magnesium, iron, and calcium in their >>cells over the amounts available. Vysotskii and coworkers at Kiev >>Shevchenko University, Ukraine (Vysotskii, Kornilova et al 1996; >>Vysotskii and Kornilova 2003; Vysotskii, Kornilova et al 1996; >>Vysotskii, Kornilova et al 2001; Vysotskii, Tashyrev et al 2008) >>carried the work further by making Fe57 from Mn55 when a collection >>of bacteria were grown in D2O. The Fe57 was detected using the >>Mossbauer effect, which is uniquely sensitive to this one isotope >>and could be used to monitor the reaction rate. The process also has >>been found to accelerate radioactive decay of some elements. >>Consequently, bacteria are being explored as a way to rapidly >>decontaminate soil. While such claims are hard to accept, evidence >>for them is mounting. If real, the claim adds one more process an >>explanation must address. In particular, an explanation must account >>for how the resulting large nuclear energy is released without >>killing the organism; otherwise the claimed ability obviously could >>not have been developed by evolution. Further simplification of an >>explanation can be achieved by assuming the initiation process and >>the method of energy release used by life-forms applies to all >>cold-fusion reactions regardless of the products or experimental >> conditions. >>The author realizes that many people find a claim for occurrence of >>nuclear reactions in living cells hard to accept and that many more >>replications are required before the claim can be fully justified. >>Nevertheless, the evidence is growing and needs to be debated in the >>context of cold-fusion. > > A fuller quote of what I wrote: >>Storms is quite conservative. The "evidence supports the claim." >>That understates the strength of the evidence. It is not marginal. > > That comment was not a general comment about Storms, but about the > specific statement made. This writer, > <http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=211768>bcrowell, active on > Science Forums, has taken the statement out of context. > > This particular argument has been alleged before about Storms on > Wikipedia, specifically because Storms mentions the work of Vysotskii > in his book (2007), and the arguments of bcrowell are very familiar > Wikipedia arguments, as if taken from a standing playlist. > > However, that comment from the review is actually conservative. > Storms does not state that biological transmutation is real, but is > noting a rather obvious fact: we reject the concept of biological > transmutation because we reject the concept of nuclear reactions at > low temperatures. If cold fusion is real -- and it is -- then we > cannot quite so confidently reject it out-of-hand. Storms notes, > correctly -- I'm made the same point many times, that "many more > replications are required before the claim can be fully justified." > > Let me explain that a little. Vyosotskii's claims are very well > supported by what he reports of experimental evidence. But major > claims like this cannot be given deep credence until and unless > verified independently. Until that happens, we cannot present his > results as fact, but it is standard scientific courtesy to report his > observations as if they are actual observations and not fraudulently > presented -- or totally bogus and the result of what bcrowell asserts below. > > What bcrowell is doing is grandstanding, presenting arguments that > could be expected to produce knee-jerk responses, i.e., based on the > idea that any mention of biological transmutation must be totally > insane, kooky, not to mention fringe. It is fringe, to be sure, but > "fringe" is not a synonym for "bad research, bogus, fraud, or > complete idiocy." That's a pseudoskeptical position. It is not at all > scientific. > > http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2990904&postcount=19 >>e: General consensus on Cold Fusion better known as "Low Energy >>Nuclear Reactions" L >> >>Originally Posted by Abd >>Lomax<http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2990891#post2990891> >>(The erratic results may be due to unknown variables -- that's known >>for the early negative replications, i.e., the variables have been >>identified -- or they may be due to some chaotic nature of the >>phenomenon itself, as would be the case with some kinds of >>experiments even with known and understood phenomena.) >> >>I think the erratic results are due to different levels of >>competence and incompetence, skepticism and credulity. > > That was bcrowell again. > > You know, if bcrowell were a cold fusion fanatic, pretending to be a > pseudoskeptic, he couldn't do a better send-up. > > He has just been presented with a summary of strong evidence that the > measurements, made by a dozen independent research groups, around the > world, showing that when excess heat is produced, helium is produced > in amounts commensurate with the heat and a hypothesis of some kind > of deuterium fusion, made plausible through the value of the > correlation. Not only has this been published in a review in a major > mainstream journal, it is also confirmed in many other reviews > published in mainstream journals, and there is no contrary > publication. It's solid. It essentially proves that whatever is > behind the variability in results, it is not "credulity" or the > implied "incompetence." With Miles, the helium measurements were made > independently, and the analytical lab did not know which samples came > from heat-producing cells, and Miles' data alone, in an earlier, > less-complete form, knocked over Huizenga in 1993, who wrote in the > second edition of his book, that these results, if confirmed, would > explain a major mystery of cold fusion. He then wrote that he did not > expect them to be confirmed because there were no "gamma rays." > > But they were confirmed. > > There are no negative confirmations of this result. The so-called > negative confirmations were of a hypothesis that the Pons-Fleischmann > design would reliably produce excess heat, which actually wasn't > claimed, and Pons and Fleischmann, with five years of experience > trying to get these cells to produce heat (after having seen a > dramatic demonstration that melted the apparatus down, and which they > were unable to approach experimentally again), were only up to, what, > one cell in six? > > It's obvious why this made many people skeptical. But finding a > corrrelated effect should have cut through that problem. > > So, we still don't know how to get this thing to be reliable (it > might have been thought by 1995), but ... we now can tell, by the > correlated product, that the effect is real. We just don't understand it! > > bcrowell's position is pure arrogant incivility, as characterized > much of the rejection of cold fusion, and it violates the accepted > protocols of science. > > It is pure rejection, based on belief in theory and what are simply > failures to replicate by some groups, not all, enshrined as if > science were an impregnable structure, not allowing any sort of > contradiction or mystery. That's a religion, not science. Even if it > calls itself "skepticism," it has forgotten to be skeptical of itself > and its own beliefs. > > The video I cited describes true scientific skepticism well, it's a > part of the method, where the scientist attempts to falsify his > hypothesis (or, the equivalent, to prove or support the null > hypothesis). This is part of experimental work, but the pseudoskeptic > does not do experimental work, or, if it is done, it is done to prove > bogosity, which has been assumed from the start, this is a well-known > problem with any scientific research, that if there is something to > prove, it can be done, there is always some way to set up conditions > and interpret -- or worse, cherry-pick -- data to support it. Biased > research may be useful, but only to suggest further research to > confirm -- or reject. > > The pseudoskeptics assume that all cold fusion research is producing > phony results because it's biased in intention. They assume that cold > fusion scientists are blinded by dreams of boundless energy. While > some may be motivated by this dream, many are not. They are simply > interested in the truth, and fascinated by finding some boundary, > beyond which lies the unknown. That can be hard to come by! And the > reward of this is in finding what is actually there, not what one > might want to be there. > > Pseudoskepicism, which attacks and ridicules anything contrary to > accepted wisdom -- according to the pseudoskeptics -- is the very > opposite of science. ScienceApologist, on Wikipedia, is pretty open > about this: he'd be on Galileo's case with the Inquistion, because he > is a "status-quo promoter, NPOV-pusher." He's radically confused > "status quo" with "neutral point of view." And, in practice, he does > exclude anything that seems to conflict with the status quo, even if > it meets all of the Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, which depend > on publisher decisions, supposedly, not on editor opinion. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ScienceApologist&oldid=377773151 > > He is not an apologist for science, but for orthodoxy and stubborn > clinging to beliefs. The very opposite of skepticism, in fact. > > -- BUY SELL Shipping Container We have urgent buyers and sellers for used containers, 20ft, 40ft, 40ft HQ, all ports in India, and ask for your serious demands and detailed offers [email protected] sptuteja 09315879780
