Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About haram

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Croatia, EU
  • Interests
    science, ofcourse :D
  1. You're right. But clearly they are match, while stratosphere shows cooling. So it is consistent with greenhouse gasses model.
  2. Hi, inductance. Good thinking, but, it seems to me that you were overlooked one more subject: satellites are measuring direct thermal radiation from surface, and their data are pretty much matching ground stations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
  3. 1) I'm not "pushing" anything, except urge for scientific consistency. 2) Those are some of the "cranks" who are/was "pushing" CF/LENR: - one of the brightest physicists of modern era, Julian Schwinger:After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers. He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ reject
  4. "by (late) Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. MIT Class of 1969 (Aero/Astro Engineering ‘69 SB; ‘70 SM) Chief Science Writer, MIT News Office 1987-1991" - it's vell documented chronology from very close credible eyewitness, point is comment from Julian Schwinger (hope you heard of him), since on this forum are at least three different themes about CF/LENR and initial post on this one is referring on institutional possibly supressing aspect in that affair, my link is contributing in that direction.
  5. From one point, I disagreed on that. They have carefully distributed funds. See how ITER must have to wait budget break approval - last one is (or was?) very questionable. But research should be started at the first place, and that is impossible if whole phenomena is ignored. I agreed on that. Observed experimental anomalies shouldn't be rejected in favour of present theories, it is to many of them in past 25 years, to be prescribed by measurement errors. Since F-P experiment, measuring equipment was improved greatly, and experiments still shows similar anomalies. Other parts of text I'
  6. @CraigD, you missunderstood me. Information about some briefing is not any proof per se, of course - it just possibly marks new era of research on that matter, because so far was banned, scattered and poorly funded. And there is significant part of scientific community that thinks that matter is very worthy of research - that is clearly confirmed in that congressional report (which was, as I'm aware for now, delayed for unknown reason). I'm aware of that it is long history of misleads and pseudo-scientific researches in US military (and even mr.Rossi himself has back there in 1980's sold som
  7. Arguments on that statement? Any source of heat on Earth's surface would be wasted if here is not some insulating layer. And that are the greenhouse gasses. If you don't believe it, visit the Moon for just one local day.
  8. So, normal is that hot/cold/dry/wet stable conditions in which is agricultural productivity for severe billions people working shortly before, are unsustainable now? Where is written that, and why we should support it? ... besides of "Mein Kampf"...
  9. It seems like that mr.Trump supporters has find the truth. God help us all.
  10. You might want to read this page 87 of NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 4909 together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] MAY 4, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed ... Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Briefing The committee is aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which produce ultraclean, low-cost renewable energy that
  11. "by (late) Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. MIT Class of 1969 (Aero/Astro Engineering ‘69 SB; ‘70 SM) Chief Science Writer, MIT News Office 1987-1991" So, it is chronological well-documented recapitulation of earliest events from the first-eye well scientific educated witness, and point is quotation from one among the brightest scientific minds of the XX century. That's why i think it is worthwhile to read. Besides that, there is at least two others topics about this problem, and my opinion is on one of them.
  12. How about thought that nuclear power so far makes about 10% of global energy production, around 2050. total energy demands will be doubled, and we yet don't know what to do about present obsolete nuclear power facilities? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dismantling-nuclear/ ... in unrealistic believe that no serious accidents will occur on proportionally scale, and no environmental damage will be committed by so large extent of uranium mining.
  13. How much of that 7 (and a half) billions are that "we"? And for how long?
  14. You are truly visionary man. Perhaps you was contributed in that? http://phys.org/news/2015-08-diamonds-sky-approach-co2-valuable.html Unfortunately, it's a bit late to avoid full scaled damaging consequences.
  15. "Finding a technology to shift carbon dioxide (CO2 ), the most abundant anthropogenic greenhouse gas, from a climate change problem to a valuable commodity has long been a dream of many scientists and government officials. Now, a team of chemists says they have developed a technology to economically convert atmospheric CO2 directly into highly valued carbon nanofibers for industrial and consumer products. The team will present brand-new research on this new CO2 capture and utilization technology at the 250th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS)"http://phys.o
  • Create New...