Roll on the 20th June

[ramset]

PEER review? which one of you is his peer    Newtonian math    he doesn't seem to like that  so.... you cram him in your space and it doesn't feel good   WHAT A SURPRISE     Archer these guys are not our friends  they [the not building ] just don't like how big your balls are  can't stand it  driving them nuts  please continue the build   Grandma always said the proof is in the pudding     anyone who passes judgment on a man  working as you are    with no requirement from onlookers    is not someone i bother to listen to  THANK YOU Archer      Chet

[ramset]

delete

[kude]

I was trying to picture Quinn's Egyptian construction device, some kind of crane I suppose, which would be used for swinging blocks around.. I wanted to see what theories for moving blocks around were out there and ran across a device called a cradle runner. There appears to be some archealogical evidence for it. I hadn't heard of this method before, but it makes sense to me. http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=376

[ramset]

 Archer Ive built alot of things  but your  Tunable SMOT throttle/Gate idea is the cats pajamas sweet !!!!    NOW im really on the edge of my seat [wish I didn't have to go back to work]  Thanks   Chet

[zerotensor]

...
Cold fusion is an excellent example.  I was studying fusion plasma physics ('hot fusion') at the time, and when Pons and Fleischman laid out the basics of what they thought was happening (deuterium-deuterium fusion in the presence of a palladium matrix, in a test tube filled with heavy water), my professor devised a way to test their basic premise by subjecting a palladium wafer to a deuterium plasma.  If they were correct, he should have seen a thousand times the reaction rate they did.  But instead - nothing.  That's how scientists react to an idea that promises a new set of rules - skepticism combined with an open mind.  If you lack either one, you're not a scientist.
...

Actually, fb, Pons and Fleishmann were railroaded in an appalling display of bias in science.  You bring up a serious issue, namely that the inherently conservative nature of the scientific establishment is a major hurdle for anyone attempting to show phenomena that do not fit within the existing paradigm.  The experiment your professor did may have ruled-out a particular mechanism, but by itself, this does not invalidate the claim that excess heat was being generated in their very different setup.  Only a very few precise replicas of the original experiment were done, and the loudest "debunking" came from the "hot fusion" researchers who were already benefiting from enormous volumes of grant money from the department of energy.  And even then, it is claimed that at least one of these replications (at MIT), arbitrarily "shifted" data which tended to support P&F's claims, so as to make it appear that no excess heating was taking place.  The DoE panel that announced that P & F 's claim was false was clearly biased toward a predetermined null result.  Since then, there have been many peer-reviewed and published studies showing excess heat, tritium production, and other evidence of nuclear reactions in similar setups.