Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Corona688 · 03-09-2002, 02:23 PM

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Corwin, 'not agreeing with you' is NOT the same thing as 'being rabid nonscientists aligned with the evil energy groups'. Every once in a while, please stop and consider that you might actually be wrong once in awhile. Your performance in that thread on the cooling of the Earth's core shows quite conclusively that you have no business arguing science.

Corwin · 03-09-2002, 04:21 PM

In this case, 'not agreeing with me' is the same as 'being closed-minded about even the possibility of any system of power generation that doesn't require huge plants to sustain the current power infrastructure.'

Myself, I don't see any particular reason to preserve that infrastructure. If this technology can break that monopoly, fine. It never will if people only listen to the negative results tho.

Jeremy Pallant · 03-09-2002, 05:05 PM

What it all comes down to is that numerous attempts to duplicate the Cold Fusion results have failed. For what was claimed to be a "simple" experiment, this is ridiculous.

As I, a scientific illiterate, see it this implies one of two things.

Firstly, the original conclusions were correct, but attempts to reproduce the results were lacking in some crucial respect that the original experimenters failed to appreciate and have been unable to resolve.

Secondly, the original experimenters misinterpreted their results.

[Edited to Add...]

A third possibility occurs to me. The original researchers outright lied.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: J. Mordecai Pallant ]</p>

Corwin · 03-10-2002, 04:44 PM

Then possibly you could explain the subsequent positive results? Or are they lying too?

David Gould · 03-10-2002, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:
<strong>

They'll need it with people like you around. Not that it will do any good since because of you and people like you nobody listens to the results they DO get... unless they're negative.</strong>

I have said over and over and over that I am attacking Pons. And yet you attack the strawman of me attacking every scientist who claims to have produced something amazing. I support fantastic stuff in science - I think science is fantastic.

As you appear to be some sort of Pons worshipper and thus obviously ignore all the dodgy shit he pulled and the crap he went on with, it is obvious to me where the closedmindeness lies here...

I am of course being closeminded here...

joedad · 03-12-2002, 09:46 AM

Here's a recent article.

<a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/20020309/fob1.asp" target="_blank">Star in a jar? Hints of nuclear fusion</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-09-2002, 02:23 PM	#41
Corona688 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Hiding from Julian ;) Posts: 5,368	<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Corwin, 'not agreeing with you' is NOT the same thing as 'being rabid nonscientists aligned with the evil energy groups'. Every once in a while, please stop and consider that you might actually be wrong once in awhile. Your performance in that thread on the cooling of the Earth's core shows quite conclusively that you have no business arguing science.

03-09-2002, 04:21 PM	#42
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	In this case, 'not agreeing with me' is the same as 'being closed-minded about even the possibility of any system of power generation that doesn't require huge plants to sustain the current power infrastructure.' Myself, I don't see any particular reason to preserve that infrastructure. If this technology can break that monopoly, fine. It never will if people only listen to the negative results tho.

03-09-2002, 05:05 PM	#43
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	What it all comes down to is that numerous attempts to duplicate the Cold Fusion results have failed. For what was claimed to be a "simple" experiment, this is ridiculous. As I, a scientific illiterate, see it this implies one of two things. Firstly, the original conclusions were correct, but attempts to reproduce the results were lacking in some crucial respect that the original experimenters failed to appreciate and have been unable to resolve. Secondly, the original experimenters misinterpreted their results. [Edited to Add...] A third possibility occurs to me. The original researchers outright lied. [ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: J. Mordecai Pallant ]</p>

03-10-2002, 04:44 PM	#44
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Then possibly you could explain the subsequent positive results? Or are they lying too?

03-12-2002, 09:46 AM	#46
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	Here's a recent article. <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/20020309/fob1.asp" target="_blank">Star in a jar? Hints of nuclear fusion</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.