Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion
By Jennifer Ouellette | October 29, 2012 |
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/
Sigh . . . As they said of the French Bourbon dynasty, these people learn
nothing, and they forget nothing. This column could have been written
anytime in the last 23 years. There is not a single scientific fact in it.
There is not one reference to scientific literature. It is based on movies
and
I updated the LENR-CANR news item about cold fusion in the mass media. I
added:
Ouellette, J., *Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold
Fusion*http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/,
in *Scientific American*. 2012.
Would you expect more from a recovering English major?
I posted three messages in response to this article; one from Ed Storms and
two of my own. All three disappeared within about 20 minutes. I assume they
were erased. I just re-posted two of them. We will see if they vanish again.
Here are two of them:
Here is a response to this article written
Hi,
Seen the contents (or better said the lack of it) of this article and
the current comments shown, thy can not otherwise than to consider the
Scientific American as a strictly biased magazine, which lacks a decent
chief editor who should have performed a thorough review and hence this
When I open a browser incognito, I find no trace of my comments, which were
#11, 12 and 13. They are only visible to me when I am signed in as Jed
Rothwell. Apparently they are embargoed. That is to say, waiting for
approval.
Ah ha. A comment posted at 2:33 just appeared. It is critical of her
Okay, my comments are definitely gone, and the comment posted at 2:33 is
gone. That one quoted Robert Duncan.
She is erasing everything after her own comment at 1:16. At least, every
criticism. Maybe someone should post fawning praise to see if she keeps it.
If they want to close the discussion
Just for the record, would you post them here?
2012/10/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Okay, my comments are definitely gone, and the comment posted at 2:33 is
gone. That one quoted Robert Duncan.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Just for the record, would you post them here?
I did:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg72503.html
I posted one other short message that I did not record.
The message posted at 2:33 was from someone else. I did not get a chance to
My last message is now gone.
You should not bother to write to this nitwit. I doubt there is any point
to writing to the editors, either.
Imagine casually erasing messages from Storms, without explanation or
apology!
- Jed
She put up an addendum from Krivit (and alluded to posting
difficulties) -- who is peddling discredited CF vs Real LENR ---
I wonder how a particular experiment knows how to behave depending on
the belief of the experimenter. (See the Pod and The Barrier)
At least I found out that Duncan is
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
2012/10/30 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
She put up an addendum from Krivit (and alluded to posting difficulties)
-- who is peddling discredited CF vs Real LENR ---
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
From Alan,
She put up an addendum from Krivit (and alluded to posting
difficulties) -- who is peddling discredited CF vs Real LENR
--- I wonder how a particular experiment knows how to behave
depending on the belief of the experimenter.
(See the Pod and The Barrier)
Sounds similar to the
14 matches
Mail list logo
