At 05:43 PM 5/2/2005, Rothwellwrote:
This field is dying, and I cannot think of any way to save it.
- Jed
Utter nonsense.
Cold fusion research and development is (and has been) very much alive.
Success in the field requires advanced calculus, metallurgy and engineering.
Much will be covered at
Wow Ed I don't think I've ever heard such optimism from you. It is
certainly welcome!
s
At 09:42 AM 5/3/2005 -0600, you wrote:
Quite the opposite, Jed. The field is moving forward on several
fronts. The field has now changed in two important ways. People who
have had some success are
Michael Foster wrote:
I wish everyone would give up on the electrolysis work. I think it's just an interesting dead end. No way to scale it up commercially.
Agreed. Too much energyinvested into getting the effect.
A bit soon to say anything for certain, but the 10 stacked (tissue paper
Michael Foster wrote:
I wouldn't be so depressed if I were you. There are plenty of us
out there doing CF research with very encouraging results who are
just not publishing anything until the patent situation changes.
Frankly, I doubt there are any that could rival Szpak or Iwamura
I wish
Jed Rothwell wrote:
These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental
papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as
I can tell, most of the theory is of the crackpot variety, and usually
about subjects unrelated to CF, such as POSSIBLE NUCLEAR
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Michael Foster wrote:
I wish everyone would give up on the electrolysis work. I think
it's just an interesting dead end. No way to scale it up
commercially.
Agreed
--- On Tue 05/03, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Foster wrote;
I wouldn't be so depressed if I were you. There are plenty of us
out there doing CF research with very encouraging results who are
just not publishing anything until the patent situation changes.
Frankly, I
These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental
papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as I
can tell, most of the theory is of the crackpot variety, and usually about
subjects unrelated to CF, such as POSSIBLE NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION
Hmmm. Not good.
At 05:43 PM 5/2/2005 -0400, you wrote:
These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental
papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as I
can tell, most of the theory is of the crackpot variety, and usually about
subjects unrelated
. No way to scale it up
commercially.
M.
--- On Mon 05/02, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental
papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as I
can tell, most of the theory is of the crackpot
-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:44 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental
papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as I
can
11 matches
Mail list logo
