But that is not what happens. In order to see the content I
had to use the SAVE AS ... command. This created the icon
of the file and I had to drag this file to the icon of Explorer
in order to display its content.
What should I do allow potential readers of the documents
to see it without saving it first? Probably some preference
in the internet Explorer, right? What is it and where is it?
That item by the way, is my translation of the russian
article already summarized in one of my CF items. A set
of corrections, and the permission to share, came this
morning. The article is full of unbelievable claims; do not
ask me to defend them. As I indicated before, I met the
author at a recent conference and was impressed by
what he said. His presentation, and the presentation of
an American scientist, triggered my preoccupation with CF.
I was not able to show my improved draft to him because
the Russian host is out of reach since this morning. Can
somebody interpret this bouncing back message for me?
The entire bounced message is shown below; it is the
third one today. I do not feel like contacting a Russian
postmaster and asking what happened.
Thanks in advance,
Ludwik Kowalski kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu
*************************************************************
From: Internet Mail Delivery <postmaster@montclair.edu>
Date: Mon Dec 16, 2002 21:23:12 US/Eastern
To: kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu
Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
This report relates to a message you sent with the following header
fields:
Return-path: <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>
Received: from tcp-daemon.bedford.montclair.edu by
bedford.montclair.edu
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001))
id <0H780063DRYN0F@bedford.montclair.edu>
(original mail from kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu); Mon,
16 Dec 2002 21:23:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.montclair.edu ([130.68.2.227])
by bedford.montclair.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7
2001))
with ESMTP id <0H7800625RYL3N@bedford.montclair.edu> for
karab.ab@g23.relcom.ru; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:23:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:22:46 -0500
From: Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>
Subject: Re: Answer from A. Karabut
In-reply-to: <001501c2a46c$e37ae320$a5d3fea9@LocalHost>
To: =?KOI8-R?B?68/Sz8LV1CDhzMXL08HOxNI=?= <karab.ab@g23.relcom.ru>
Message-id: <6E1E4E47-1166-11D7-A281-000393C69FB6@mail.montclair.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
Recipient address: karab.ab@g23.relcom.ru
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550-contact postmaster@relcom.ru for further
info mail from 130.68.1.128 rejected:
administrative prohibition (host is blacklisted)
Remote system: dns;relay1.relcom.ru (dragon.relcom.ru ESMTP [relcom],
Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:23:13 +0300)
Original-recipient: rfc822;karab.ab@g23.relcom.ru
Final-recipient: rfc822;karab.ab@g23.relcom.ru
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (Remote SMTP server has rejected address)
Remote-MTA: dns;relay1.relcom.ru
(dragon.relcom.ru ESMTP [relcom], Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:23:13 +0300)
Diagnostic-code: smtp;550-contact postmaster@relcom.ru for further info
mail
from 130.68.1.128 rejected: administrative prohibition (host is
blacklisted)
From: Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>
Date: Mon Dec 16, 2002 21:22:46 US/Eastern
To: Îœ“œ¬’‘ ·Ã≈À”¡Œƒ“ <karab.ab@g23.relcom.ru>
Subject: Re: Answer from A. Karabut
I AM SENDING THIS AGAIN. THIS REPLY WAS REJECTED
TWICE BY YOUR SERVER (?) SINCE THIS MORNING.
Hi Alexander:
. . . I will read the paper later and make corrections. Meanwhile here
are some additional comments (suggestions and questions):
1) The phrase "nuclear transmutation products" seems to be
appropriate for what you call "impurities." I saw this term
being used by others. You should use it too.
2) Considering very low concentrations of such products
people will always suspect that they are due to some kind of
contamination, for example, Pd or your chamber, might have
been contaminated. You must address this issue explicitly;
remember "extraordinary claims call for extraordinary efforts."
Being very clear that the observed products are not due to
contamination should be essential in the attached abstract
for Cordoba conference.
3) An attempt to convert 100 R/s (from that abstract) into power
resulted in 10 mW. Correct me where I am wrong. Since this
is only an estimation I translated 100 R/s into 10000 ergs/s. If
the volume of the dosimeter is 0.1 cm^3 then one gets 0.01 W.
This is about 0.1% of your average excess power. I think that
0.1% is a rather high efficiency in comparison with an ordinary
x-ray tube. Right? Is this the coherent (laser-like) radiation that
you were referring to in our conversations? How can you
justify this?
4) I suspect that our communication would improve if you could
send my messages in Russian. Try to do this by creating a pdf
file and attaching it to your next reply.