barfbag

Unsure why even bother with wheels if you are going to magnetically levitate the bike. Sounds like the Mag levitating trains that already ride on a magnetic field. Two types of mag lev trains exist. A kind that rides on a cushion of the same polarity (push), and one that is lifted upwards by opposite polarities (pull). By adjusting magnetic angles they can arrive at incredible speeds.

At Sensai, After I wrote, "here is a photo" I then went searching for one by typing ecat in images. I found some but the 3D view of one was more detailed. I SWEAR IF YOU DO NOT CROSS EVERY i and Dot every T around here........ Better?

Thanks for posting. It is interesting read. Things that make you go Hmmm.

I will add a dimension to this. Is a child who grows up playing video games smarter on average than someone who watches an equal amount of television? Video games may be destructive, but many are goal oriented and need intelligence and a practical nature to build your cities, empires, businesses (even if criminal), etc. If the father in the OP article wanted his kids to feel empathy... Nothing better than buying them a dog. Animal lovers are just better people, and training my animals is a fav pastime for me and them. Why even use kids as examples. Try playing a few games like a Tower defense game (I like them and they are free and quick) where you kill the people walking through your valleys. Then walk outside and see if you can imagine killing your neighbor. It just does not translate. Banning kids from games does not work. I was banned from having a toy gun as a child and as soon as I was old enough i joined the reserves and became a marksman. My eldest son has been allowed every video game around and has every gaming system on the market. Now he does not play any of them and barely watches television. He would rather be outside on a skateboard or his bike (that he saved $1000 for from working). I vote that videogames have no influence on whether someone becomes a sociopath. The first Playstation one had some pretty advanced fighting games (red alert, GTA, etc.) and that came out over 20 years ago, so we would see a real rise in violence by now (as opposed to false stats based on overpolicing as some claim).

@ Jacques, Must be from the same catalogue that sells Hot Fusion, Higgs Boson, Cockroach Cyborgs. When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone it did not automatically appear in every home overnight. It took at least a week or two. Would you ingest a drug that has not been tested on humans yet? When Pons & Fleischmann discovered and announced cold fusion in 1989 they could only replicate their own experiment 1% of the time. Should a device that works only a percentage of the time be sold at Home Depot? Maybe they should wait a few years and get it to work 100% of the time and work well. Is that okay with you Jaques, or do you think all research should be immediately sold in Walmart? @ Jaques still, Another thing Jaques... The inventor has been rich most of his life and owned a company worth $30 million USD when he was in his thirties. President Carter gave him a VISA to America and citizenship. Now you can buy the ecat device and it is for sale if you can afford one. I think the heating units sell for approx $2 000 000. Here is a photo... @ Jaques still, Not only is he rich, but he also looks a lot like Fabio. (ps. I backed up this post also as I do with any writing)

@ Swansont, Yes there were 13 posts in my OP of this thread. A child could easily differentiate between all the links in the Opening Posts because each one was labelled well. Go ahead. Ask a child to read the Opening Post and see if he/she is capable of knowing what the various links describe. This Forum is not in the "Trash Can" as I had thought, so that is an approvement. It should be in the news section where it originated because Cold Fusion breakthroughs are EXTREMELY relevant to society, and could be much more important than most topics there. One topic in news here recently was "Children exposed to religion have hard time differentiating reality from fiction. Wow! That must be a hard question to determine. Quiz: Child A, do you believe in god? Yes I do. FAIL.... Child B, do you believe in god? No I don't. PASS. Anybody could have a fun with this interview model, but it is not news. @ Swansont, Can you describe my various 5 warnings and what they were for? If not then how come you profess to be an expert? If you do not find these insulting to your methods as you are the main person being discussed here, then that is your own comprehension issue. I am strong in English and am a published author. Some of my posts are longer than most because I write a lot. Adding emphasis... @ swanson still, How about this burn. You have not done a bad job of discounting presented evidence... YOU'VE DONE NO JOB AT ALL. That disappoints me also! lol @ Swansont still, Serious? You cannot see any insult in those? It is hardly veiled. But don't worry. You have not done a bad job of discounting presented evidence... (cough)... (wait for it)... YOU'VE DONE NO JOB AT ALL. However Ophiolite explains it was not an insult (it was) because he did not use an angst ridden style. . Yes. I do have great style. ty. @ Ophiolite, As opposed to your much colder insulting styles, like.... Why with the exception of Sensei? Is that an angst ridden insult, or just a cold calculated one directed at Sensei? Why is he excluded from the conversation at your Whim? I present facts and evidence with all my claims, and always have. If others are too thick to be interested enough to read about the topics then they should also refrain from speaking about them. You at least admit to not knowing this subject... @ ophiolite, you say Why are you imposing your uneducated view (you claim "I bask in the warm (non-nuclear) glow, of not having looked at the evidence.") of what constitutes the relevant portions of Alains post. The Pro LENR postings here are lengthy and informative throughout, but as you noted the LENR is speculative folk here (The members have not done a bad job of discounting the presented evidence, they have done no job at all1) Have not refuted evidence in any formal manner. They have done "NO JOB AT ALL" according to you. If my writing seems full of "angst" it is due to the speculation viewpoint here doing "NO JOB AT ALL" of "DISCOUNTING THE PRESENTED EVIDENCE". I'm more at a point where I find humor in the skepticism, much like the Wright brothers must have felt flying past those who said flight was impossible four years after they were flying.

@ Swansont, In THE OPENING POST of this thread (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SPLIT OFF FROM A FRAUD THREAD) I gave a specific scientific paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 It was never discussed, refuted, or likely even looked at by you or other members here, although that paper has since been backed up by several other universities and a new team of experts. so when you say, That is not exactly the truth is it. You have ignored precise examples, so now you are getting a flood of them which all confirm LENR whether you choose to accept reality (it has nothing to do with belief) or not. I actually do not have a problem with those like you who do not look at the evidence willingly unless they are trying to refute a topic of which they lack an elementary understanding of how the field is progressing. That linked report was met with so much incredulity that another report was prepared by a second team of experts in the field. http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf Which has become known as "The Lugano Report". These reports specifically target the Rossi ecat device, but we have also referenced dozens of companies that claim to produce LENR currently, and many papers surrounding those.

@ strange, To find this thread you must go to the bottom of the screen to a sub forum called "Speculations". That sub forum has another section called "TRASH CAN". There can be no confusion of this because it is spelled T-R-A-S-H C-A-N. So what do you mean this entire LENR topic is not in the Trash Can when it most certainly is. It has been in the Trash Can area of Speculations since the Thread was originally split and I was falsely accused of Thread Hijack although that moderator reversed the hijack decision after some protest. @ Ophiolite, Had I so poignantly insulted the moderation staff I'm sure I would have received yet another undeserved warning post. There is plenty of disappointing behaviour here I agree. @ Everyone, So many times in this thread the terms, Appeal to authority arise.... yet we always have people like strange saying, So in one hand we have compelling evidence according to Dennis Bushnell, Chief research Scientist at NASA Langley, where he says, So who is right? Maybe SwansonT, Again I will look at the silly comment above arguing against a quote by The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley, and wonder why these guys are trolling the thread saying "No evidence, no evidence", when there apparently is hundreds of documented cases. Maybe that quote will one day be, "It is now selling in every store, but that does not mean it is real". Appeal to authority is all that is left if you refuse to look at the vast experimental evidence that has been previously mentioned many times including the OP. Papers, experiments, and authority arguments have all been given in this thread, and yet it remain in the TRASH CAN AREA OF SPECULATIONS. The Above quote by Dennis Bushnell was given in the OPENING POST of this thread way back in JUNE and that was not even an opening post, it was a thread split from an ongoing topic in the news area. LENR should be in news area alot. If you go back to the start of this thread I gave more facts and figures, but I did not even expect any comments this last time because this is in the TRASH CAN AREA OF SPECULATIONS IN SCIENCE FORUMS. As time goes on and LENR becomes more widespread and accepted I think I should be allowed some "I told you so" type in your face laughter/emotional responses. Let's put this thread in its proper perspective here. It was split from a thread called, and when it is still considered by this Forum seemingly as a whole (aside from ophiolite who wished to distance himself from moderation comments here. - "I wish to distance myself from the moderation remarks") as Trash Science.

http://www.univrmagazine.it/sito/vedi_articolo.php?id=2806 Bill Gates is looking to invest 1 Billion Dollars into Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Maybe he read my email to the Gates Foundation last year. lol (I did send one). The University of Verona has confirmed Bill Gates went there to examine LENR first Hand. MEANWHILE BACK AT SCIENCE FORUMS LENR is only worthy of THE TRASH CAN. LMFAO. Translates roughly as: Wow. Research programs exist. Most qualified in this field. These sound like terms coming from real scientists who actually consider this topic science. I expect you lot to all Chastize Bill Gates now for his belief in "JUNK SCIENCE". Start........ NOW!!!

* The only reasons I have seen for these routes not being taken are spurious and insulting, or accusatory and libelous - depending on which side one reads. It is my understanding that the devices are.. being sold and used. Creating electricity is not yet possible because of the low steam output. Various steam engines have been looked at, but none seem to fit the bill atm. Hanno Essén, born September 27, 1948, is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.[1] This one fellow was (according to his wikipedia page) "CHAIRMAN OF THE SWEDISH SKEPTICS SOCIETY". I think that should weigh in aside from his astounding credentials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Ess%C3%A9n I realize this is just one instance of LENR verification, but there are well over 20 well known companies (including NASA, TOYOTA, MITSUBISHI, HONDA, MIT, etc..) that claim to have working LENR. LENR is beyond the point it should be accepted to those in the know, and there are literally thousands of papers about cold fusion/LENR and many say it is real. Anyways. I won't argue. One day the literature will catch up. I was only posting a report that had been waited for by some.

Cold Fusion / AKA.. (L)ow (E)nergy (N)uclear ®reactions Maybe our cars will be running on Nickel Powder in a few years. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/10/prweb12239416.htm (Above link shows new successful verification by respected scientific teams and Universities, with comments from NASA (who also fund LENR research)) A Third Party Verification of the Andrea Rossi Cold Fusion Device (Ecat) last year had some ridiculous arguments against it including hidden power sources such as lazer beams, grounding shelving and more delivering extra power to the devices, and that led them to revise the report and meet the objections. It was a sound and fair assessmetn of the ecat devices. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 This held the weight of many reputations, and proof was demonstrated. HOWEVER. Since then... As first link goes to an article about where LENR is now with another Third party verification using highly respected scientists Mainstream Science is being forced to bite the bullet, and even though I do not expect this to be pulled out of pseudoscience, I do hope a few of the "educated" here will alter their stances. Pons and Fleischmann were heroes who deserve accolades, and yet Fleischmann went to his grave ridiculed by mainstream science simply because he announced an experiment that was only successful one out of every 1000 tries and nobody could replicate it. Well it turns out they were right all along. They were ostracized from the scientific community in America and Fleischmann went and joined Toyota in Japan. All for announcing one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time. I suppose all real science is pseudoscience first.

@ imaatfaal and Ten Oz, I think it looks rwal and is used to cut movie costs in many ways. Look at this clip for 30 seconds and see ... (it saves redoing the background for repeated shots)

@ Charony, Which one of us cited this first. Without checking I think it was me. It was further noted that this reference was too a paid subscription, and I was not about to subscribe to that site for one PDF. So .. If I cited it first then it was not really your citation in my opinion. However I do applaud recent activity on this thread and it is enabling my own look at the subject to a higher degree. Edit: I have looked at post 6 and I did reference a 1994 paper by those authors in that post. I have not verified they are the same but will do so in the future. @ Charony, While I think some here react without thinking, you have at least cited something even if it is something I had already pointed at.and I do appreciate your efforts to update my education. I am wanting to understand this fully now, but my earlier stance is what we learned in my day.

Hercules might be as expected. A lot of violence with good conquering evil. Action movies are advancing to an entire new level this past year as SGI techniques improve. I even use green screens in my own home movies these days. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I also liked LUCY a lot and it rated poorly.

No. Not even close. You have made this claim before. I have repeated my contention many times and yet you are still getting it wrong unless this is a purposeful straw man. My claim "JUST TO BE CLEAR" is that the brain coupling the sensation of "HOT" (NOTHING TO DO WITH PAIN), is caused by activating both the warm and cold thermoreceptors simultaneously. I am under the current understanding that the cold thermoreceptor might also be used when sensing pain, but pain has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD. Yet any kid who has been to a science center likely knows this by wrote. MAYBE ITS ALL THE GIANT SIGNS BESIDE THE DEMONSTRATION THAT SAY OUR BRAIN INTERPRETS COLD AND WARM SIGNALS TOGETHER AS HOT. Those are often decent clues. If this topic is beyond your expertise then at least support your claim with some citation. You make fun of my citations being old, but at least I found some. I have REPEATEDLY said this is about the sensation of HOT. Pain is another thread/topic if you wish to take your lack of expertise there also. I think I should find out for myself and come back here in a few weeks, because nobody else is citing any evidence. Just empty words.

I agree with Strange.. The model tested by NASA was the Guido Fetta model. If that is debunked then there is no model.

Citations please. Who says it is wrong. I'm open to the idea of it being wrong, but not just on somebody's say so. I'd like to know how it is wrong today (if it is). I concede maybe some new understandings have arisen, but not a single person has yet tried to explain how it is viewed today. Arguing does not tell us how it is today, and so the only evidence we have put forth in this thread (which I never started btw) is what I could find in an older textbook. As far as I know that still stands as truth today. It certainly is true that the Thunberg's thermal grill illusion uses both cold and warm thermoreceptors to achieve the sensation of hot. It's the same as the burning your hands feel while warming after a bare hands snowball fight. HOW COULD "Thunberg's thermal grill illusion" work if this is not true today? So YOU CLAIM this is still 30 year old hypothesis, but yet nobody is saying what it is. Heaven forbid I should search some more and find out it is truer today than 30 years ago. as far as being right. This topic was delegated to pseudoscience, and furthermore was made fun of by members and moderators from post 2 on. Yet it turns out I was quoting commonly known things from my own School days. It SHOULD BE IN BIOLOGY .. whoever moved it here was in error. Imagine any other topic by any other member. If they stated something as a "fun fact" and then it turned out scientific breakthroughs had nulled that hypothesis would they simply correct you with updated information or make fun of the idea and ridicule it, and put it in its very own thread (this was a split thread (i did not start this thread or i would have been better prepared)). IN PSEUDOSCIENCE. Quote from post 2, So show me now why this is nonsensical.. I'm open to learning. How about somebody actually use facts or citations instead of "SWEET BABY JESUS" videos. Somebody said this is a science forum.. Maybe demonstrate that.

@ Hypervalent_Iodine, Repetitive. This was the first University text I could find on the matter. I said in post 2 that "Hot" was abad search term and I got more bikinis than science papers. You have not addressed this proof that this is what was taught at least as far back as 1984. about Charony Charony has stated that opinion has changed since 1984 but that it would be (however I will be satisfied knowing my stance was common knowledge among university students and science center attendees in 1984) So we are only left with the 1984 standard hypothesis that 100% supported my views. Why not admit you are wrong and move this to biology so others may learn from your mistakes. I mean.. How can you argue against this? the cold stimulus alone generates a cold experience and the warm stimulus feels pleasantly warm. However, together the person feels heat - Hanover University, Indiana. (from above quote in post 28) This thread is being well read apparently. Does that not give more reasons to either move the thread or argue against a University textbook.

Even though my point is proven or was the accepted stance in 1984 according to Hanover College paper the cold stimulus alone generates a cold experience and the warm stimulus feels pleasantly warm. However, together the person feels heat - Hanover University, Indiana. (from above quote) Perhaps, hot is experienced when both the cold and warm receptors fire at the same time. - Hanover University, Indiana (from above quote) Zotterman (1959) found that cold fibers respond strongly to both cold stimuli and at hot stimuli - Hanover University, Indiana (from above quote). This topic has not been moved back to biology, nor has apologies or conceding statements from those who were wrong here been heard. Inow? Hypervalent_Iodine? Notice how they used the term heat in exactly the same form I was admonished for? Notice how this is what was taught bt colleges in 1984. If. If.. If.... a newer understanding has occurred since 1984 I WILL BE HAPPY knowing I was simply passing along taught subject matter from my school days. The sensation of hot is felt by thermoreceptors that can only detect cold and warm activating together and compiled in the brain as a sensation of hot. End of Story... Yet it is fun to re-read this thread and see how much ardent opposition this "fun fact" received. It was even broken off into a PSEUDOSCIENCE THREAD by someone lacking in correct knowledge. This should be put back in BIOLOGY and apologies lined up. My statement was: College material states: Are not both statements clearly saying the exact same thing. It even uses Heat in the same context Inow and Hypervalent_Iodine tried saying was wrong. So... Will anybody admit to being wrong?

Well in fairness the Theater I viewed those movies were licensed and served dinners and alcohol right to our seats which might have accounted for some of the hilarity. Nothing liked a boozed up theater crowd on opening night. So my theater was laughing and clapping through them, but opening night usually draws fans of the comics or literature. I must say though that Rotten Tomatoes rated "Guardians of The Galaxy" above 90% though from both critic and audience viewpoints so somebody else liked it. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/guardians_of_the_galaxy/ Lucy however was given poorer ratings closer to 50%. I thought it was so unique though I'd give it extra points just for that.

@ OP, "You may be intending to become a moderator by... ability to make derogatory comments to newbies. That's all fine and good" So it is fine and good to make derogatory comments to newbies. This explains much of the moderation I've seen. Example: I received 4.... warning points for a thread where I suggested believing in telepathy could aid in the belief of a god if one existed. I think the idea of mass consciousness which would be what is occurring if we are all psychic and god is a similar concept. Then I see threads that discuss gay parenting go way off topic and turn into a political debate and no warning points are given. In fact I see "Thread Hijacking" as a common occurrence here yet only a few get infraction points. Heck! I probably risk a ban simply by pointing this out, but at least I'm calling a spade a spade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade Now I see such behavior seems to be encouraged. It should NOT BE FINE to make derogatory remarks to newbies no matter what position they hope to achieve (or already have) here. At least you should recognize this about yourselves.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 If this is true then it could cut the size of satellites in half because no propulsion fuel would be required. They could get enough power from solar energy to provide thrust. Roger Shawyer has been trying to interest people in his EMdrive for some years through his company SPR Ltd. This idea was independently verified by the Chinese, and then an American (Guido Fetta) built a working model that NASA verified works as link above states. There is no working Theory on this so it will likely be "speculations" even after they are using it for propulsion.

@ JohnC, One could argue that no food is readily available in winter as even hunting in northern climates must have been extremely awkward in the snows of the north. But meats and Vitamin rich fruits were often dried, smoked, salted, etc. for those snow days. If anyone worries about Vitamin c in northern climates, plums grow quite well along the 49th parallel, and they have a fair amount I think. Strawberries also. Plus many vegetables also have vitamin c. Tomatoes (ok so it's a fruit), Bell peppers, ettc. a quick search yielded this as I wonder about Eskimos.. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2374/traditionally-eskimos-ate-only-meat-and-fish-why-didnt-they-get-scurvy so raw meats can even yield vitamin content.

No. If you look at how they view The Copenhagen Interpretation you will see that was merely an example. Fred Alan Wolf (Aka Dr. Quantum) is somewhat famous but uses TCI to give religious connotations where they do not exist. Bohr helped create TCI, and he did not agree with many either on this topic. That is why I used them as examples.

Yes. it is interesting, but I had conceded the point in post 92. I knew eventually I would be wrong about something. Turns out to be about potatoes. Although North American food is on topic. It is straying somewhat.