On May 29, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 29 May 2007 12:28:49
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Regarding D + Pd cold fusion cathode conditions, Hora and Miley write
[1]: The screened deuterons are mutually repulsed by their Coulomb
field at
On May 29, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
In other words, the failure here is in the scientific community,
not in the national political leadership.
I suspect this is not entirely true. Some of the failure may be
due to lobbyists and political dogma.
True.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:24 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!
...
But, by the same standard, I
suppose 1% of the public believes in perpetual motion machines such
I'm not a big Rife-head - perhaps someone here can offer perspective
about whether this recent journal article is essentially confirming
Rife / radionic methods.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/9/3288
Specifies a method for destroying brain cancer tumors using AC
Michel Jullian wrote:
evolution, but I would not want to see government money spent on
creationism. (I suspect these polls exaggerate the support for
creationism.)
You're right Jed, the public believes in many silly things, so why
the hell do you want to rely on them to decide which
This makes a lot of sense, but how will the public vote between CF and Joe
Newman's machine or any other fringe research in practice? Via some reality
television program? (why not) And who/what will guide their choice?
Michel
P.S. I came across this excellent paper, it's not really new (2002)
Horace Heffner wrote:
Honestly, I disagree with this policy. I do not think that any part
of government can or should be removed from the hand of politics.
Well, it was also the goal to get the energy fund entirely out of
government as well: When financially independent, and maybe sooner,
the
On 29/5/2007 12:01 AM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 28 May 2007 21:17:21 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Marshall wrote in the 1895 edition of Principles of Economics:
As Mr. Giffen has pointed out, a rise in the price of bread makes so large a
drain on the
Greening Earth Society probably refers to increased vegetal production due to
increased CO2. Ingenious naming.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold
Michel Jullian wrote:
This makes a lot of sense, but how will the public vote between CF
and Joe Newman's machine or any other fringe research in practice?
Via some reality television program? (why not) And who/what will
guide their choice?
The public will have to educate itself by reading
Harry Veeder wrote:
Westerners have become so dependent on oil consumption that we will continue
to buy more of it even as the price rises. It is too late to expect rising
oil prices to reduce the demand for oil. People complain and complain about
the price but still the demand rises.
Many
In reference to Robin's article (see below)...
Methinks the authors slipped more than one decimal.
Jed:
Hard to imagine that it's taken this long for this mistake to be noticed!
Perhaps you could FWD this info off to Miley, et.al., so they can correct the
error. If they have cemented the
Michel Jullian wrote:
Greening Earth Society probably refers to increased vegetal
production due to increased CO2. Ingenious naming.
Exactly right. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society
The Society website appears to be defunct:
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/
It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Methinks the authors slipped more than one decimal.
Jed:
Hard to imagine that it's taken this long for this mistake to be
noticed! Perhaps you could FWD this info off to Miley, et.al., so
they can correct the error.
Will do.
- Jed
Exxon has been funding 138 anti-environmentalist front organizations!
Such busy, busy bees. If they had put one-tenth of that money into
cold fusion research instead they would own the world by now.
See:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
Here is a cute one, with a
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 30 May 2007 13:41:29 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
On 29/5/2007 12:01 AM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 28 May 2007 21:17:21 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Marshall wrote in the 1895 edition of Principles of Economics:
As Mr. Giffen
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Wed, 30 May 2007 12:35:01 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:24 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no!
...
But, by the
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Is the demand rising in the US?
Yes. In 1990 it was 17,753 thousand barrels per day, in May 2006 it
was 20,532, and now it is 20,747. See:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wrpupus2w.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html
On May 30, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
First, the people in this Energy Fund fund would be as political as
any other group of people or chimpanzees. Primates all engage in
politics, all of the time. Industry would buy off the Fund managers
as quickly as they subvert members of
Horace Heffner wrote:
Industry would buy off the Fund managers
as quickly as they subvert members of Congress.
Wrong. Fund managers don't face re-election.
Elected or not, they like money and they can be bought. Investment
fund managers at Merrill Lynch will bought and paid for by Enron.
On May 30, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It was concrete and executable.
I do not think you can engineer a breakthrough. If we were talking
about building a new Internet or a highway system, with existing
technology or incremental improvements, then a centralized planning
and
21 matches
Mail list logo
