Royston

I'm a snail...no seriously, I'm a snail. Not really, I'm a hermaphrodite...no seriously, I'm a hermaphrodite. I'm not sure if all species of snail are hermaphrodites, but anyway, I own some giant African land snails, hence the name. It was also a nick name, from my ex, yes it is quite unusual, but it was meant as a term of endearment...umm, it's kind of hard to explain.

Which is why I couldn't understand, that it's been brought back into the public eye again. Thanks Swansont, I was comparing with electrical heaters, which AFAIK are 100% efficient. It certainly makes more sense that there's an error in measurements, than anyone trying to convince otherwise. I was a bit confused by the media interpretation i.e I thought the results were muddied somehow, for a good article.

Exactly, and that's what I'm trying to find out, there's either a huge communication problem between the press and the people testing it (which is likely) or there's a part of the device the company have held disclosed. Either way, it'll be interesting to find out where the discrepancy lies...if it's possible, from the information we have.

Exactly...so why is the catalyst 'secret.' There's certainly nothing going on at the sub-atomic level, it reminds me of the cold fusion claims.

I found this...I guess it's only hit the press again, due to the testing at The University of York. There's a diagram of how the system works, note 'the secret catalyst.' http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ecowatts_Thermal_Energy_Cell

This article caught my eye, as the company responsible for said 'Thermal Energy Cell' is just a few miles down the road from where I live. Here's some excerpts from my local paper...The Argus.

It sounds like your mixing assumptions with baseless assumptions, e.g an axiom is a widely accepted assumption, so there's nothing wrong with an assumption if it rides on 'to the best of our knowledge...' Well, for baseless assumptions, I guess education. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Well, if you're in the position that you have to make a quick decision, and you don't have time to gather more data to refine your assumption, then you're forced to assume the outcome...rather than the assumption being 'the best way.'

It doesn't need to be extensive...just Universities you've attended, and achievements e.g BSc, MSc et.c what you're working on at present, and anything outside your study/research you feel is relevant.

Anywhooo...I'm going to be contacting the few post grads, and phd students I know. I'm also going to politely ask my Uni if I can advertise the site in their monthly news letter. There's one other organization in the UK that is tackling bad science (AFAIK), and a journalist...needless to say I'll be contacting them in the near future, for support and advice et.c So before this thread veers off track, it's very early stages, so we do need all the help we can get in getting this project off the ground. So any experts/writers et.c please follow the links in the OP.

Could you point out, where on the site we have not used capital letters, where they should of been used. Or if you're referring to IA's posts above, they're just posts...not articles i.e they're not proof read.

1 guess, to who has just been issued a permanent ban ? <sigh>

Try staff@dbunked, I just sent a test E-mail, seems ok. Thanks for the article IA Just to add, if anybody has any colleagues, fellow students, associates that feel this is a worthy cause, and you feel could make a worthwhile contribution, then please spread the word

Pioneer, please, I was very specific about the area of interest...this is not your arena for spouting your unsubstantiated ideas. Like I've said before Pioneer/Sunspot...if you want to present an argument, keep it simple, follow the three C's and don't hijack a thread, and stick to the topic ! I've wasted my time, explaining to you, yet again, to consider the topics at hand. Please give constructive criticism, or additions to the topic, not a load of subjective ramblings. I had something to add, but now I've forgotten my point...pffft

iNow, I will come back to this. I'm still trying to wrap my head around precisely what's going on with a Eureka moment i.e putting it into an analogy. But so far, I guess it could be considered like this... We have two pathways running parallel to each other, they can be treated as two unrelated concepts, or ideas or some such. Ahead there are multiple pathways (a tangled mess), that represent the thoughts trying to tackle linking the two pathways. So trying to tackle the problem becomes hard, because the multiple pathways represent noise, and there's no clear link. By not thinking about the problem, the noise reduces, and the link quite literally finds itself...and hence the Eureka moment. This means, you can be tackling a problem for ages, and it's really only by chance that you get the eureka moment, clearly you have to be thinking about the two concepts to start with, but it 's anybodies guess when the eureka moment actually happens. Sorry if that was incredibly fluffy (and perhaps off the mark), it would be better to have that explained in neurological terms.

Well yeah, but you need to be qualified, or at least except scrutiny, before you can start thinking critically about certain ideas in science. Clearly there's no harm in pondering, or approaching certain principles / theories from a different angle...but it shouldn't be dressed as 'fact', or science, if it hasn't gone through the same rigourous procedures as any other proposal, or hypothesis. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by 'protecting them from reality.' It's when ideas escape into the public domain, dressed as fact, that the problems start. Sorry to BenTheMan, if this has gone off topic.

Well I think so, information, especially in today's environment can spread rapidly...this is an important point to note. If crackpottery, and pseudoscience isn't brought to attention, it can have rather grave consequences. It's apparent in 'all' fields of science, from medicine, to geology...surely giving people tested, evidence based, quality information, is wholly beneficial.

Because they're not 'clear cases' to people who have little or no scientific knowledge. I really don't think bringing attention to crackpottery, is a means to make somebody who does have a solid grounding in science, look better. Ideas that smear the 'field' of science, should be dealt with...if somebody can't be arsed to get a formal education, and learn to do science properly, then they have no business presenting their ideas as science, it's as simple as that. If so-called 'crackpots' listened to reason, and modified their ideas given new evidence, data et.c there wouldn't be a problem...but they wouldn't be 'crackpots' if that was the case. This isn't a statement aimed at anybody in particular, it's a general rule.

Thanks 1veedo, I'll look forward to it. iNow, I had a quick scan of the articles, and that's precisely what I was looking for, so thanks...I'll have a proper read at work tomorrow, bit busy with my assessment at the moment.

No it's not EDIT: If you can find a pub that serves proper tomato sauce with it's chips, give it a try...it tastes nothing like ketchup (just pure tomatoes). Not meaning to be pedantic, but it's the equivalent of saying pasta sauce is ketchup.

Buy a bazil plant, you can get 5kg of Pasta from Tesco for under £ 1.50, canned plum tomatoes, veg gravy to thicken. Of course you can add any combinations to the above, peppers, courgette et.c whatever you have knocking around in the fridge. Quick, healthy...and most importantly very cheap.

Ok, however I was really after a technical explanation e.g has anything been identified through fMRI scans for instance. Or if there are any controlled studies in this area. Slightly off topic, but I stumbled across this whilst googling earlier... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6346069.stm

Wasn't too sure where to put this, maybe belongs in physiology/neuroscience ? I tried searching for this last night, but I was very tired so probably overlooked something...anyway, what I was wondering, have there been any studies in to what happens in the brain when there's that eureka moment. I realize this maybe a hard moment to capture under lab conditions, but certainly not impossible. I'm coming to the end of my applied maths course, and I've had many 'forehead slapping' moments, when it seems the problem I was struggling on suddenly fits into place, or a certain principle suddenly clicks and 'I get it.' I can't really pin point whether it's a combination of tackling a certain problem from different angles, or approaches and it's that final approach that warrants the 'eureka moment.' However, I'm sure this has happened when I'm thinking about something completely unrelated and something just clicks. So if anybody knows of any studies into this, or if there are any theories on what precisely is going on in the brain when this happens, I'd be really interested. Sorry if this is a little vague, this really isn't my area.

If people you like or know very well, have an annoying habit, and you confront them about their habit, I've found it can be turned around into a joke...especially if it's something quite unique to them, or something they didn't even realize they were doing. However, if you feel uncomfortable about confronting them about a habit, or you know they will react badly, then the annoyance will escalate. It's funny you've mentioned this, just today, I literally blew my top while I was trying to concentrate, due to this woman at work. I've had five years working with this woman, and we don't get on...at all. In fact we're at completely different ends of the spectrum in many respects. We try to stay out of each others way, and only talk when work requires it, which sounds hideous, but it's not that bad. The issue, is that due to my long tenure with working with this woman, I know confronting her about my irrational loathing of her habit will cause more friction between us. Unfortunately she's had problems in the past with other people, just because of 'the way she is', and I don't think she could handle any more criticism. However, because I can't confront her about this habit, it makes it even more intolerable. All she does is, while at her desk, is make little 'mmmm' noises, and witters to herself. However in the same breath, she'll sing for a little bit, then say 'Oh for God's sake', and then make more 'mmmm' noises. Unfortunately, she is undeniably stupid, but puts on this pretense she's really clever...and it fails horribly, and it's actually quite insulting. Half of me feels sorry for her, and the other half wants to grab her head, and smash it repeatedly into her monitor...'mmm' that you f*ckwit! So I sympathize with your situation with your maths teacher...maybe if you did mention it to her, do you think she'd see the funny side. Just to add, I know people that have quite endearing habits, and it makes them who they are, but it's certainly subjective as to what habits a person finds appealing, and the opposite, irritating. Sometimes it's good to question why you find it irritating...however this just hasn't worked with regards to the woman I work with. Believe me, I know how petty it may seem getting worked up by such a thing, but you need to understand how long this has been tolerated, and that my job gives me the freedom to study part time...so I'm still working on how to rationalize this annoyance.

I posted at work, where SFN is a small box next to my other apps. You're right..it doesn't cover the logo, it's just my attention is immediately drawn to the ad. 'Easypizza' being bright orange with a guy stuffing his face.

Considering Paranoia is 'all' of the above, this makes it perfectly acceptable I know, lets all sit around and have a go at 'each other', that's a good idea The only person I feel sorry for is Blike, for wondering what the hell he's started. I agree with Paranoia...lighten up Bettina, we're not that bad, honest