I was wondering how long it would take Maryyugo to wade in with nonsense like, "I wonder if NASA management"; she, he or it just doesn't get it. NASA management knows all about this, and this type of public info is not introduced willy nilly. I know many of these so called management people.
I am sure this is all going to be really hard for her and the moletrap people, the possibility of an energy breakthrough goes against their dark age thinking. My advice to her and them is get used to it. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > You can reach the video from here: http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/ and > it's headlined like this "Feature Stories: NASA's Method for a Clean Nuclear > Energy For Your Power Operated Technology" > > This is, well... sort of weird. I wonder if anyone in NASA's PR department > or higher management has seen it. First of all, the production values are > lousy. It looks as if it was shot with a cheap web cam. It features Zawodny > who is mostly out of focus during his strange, hesitant talk which is hard > enough to understand, it's subtitled! They talk about an un-named fuel of > some sort which is unchanged in mass by the reaction which is basically > unexplained. They don't say where the excess heat is from. They keep > referring to this fuel as "it". And they only say somehow carbon, nickel and > hydrogen are involved. The rest is the usual obvious and irrelevant comments > about how inexpensive thermal energy can be used. Everybody already knows > that. > > As "Angus" wrote on the Moletrap forum: "Oh goodie. Another "we're looking > at it, and if we can get it to work it could heat your house and do other > wonderful things" video. There's nothing new about the idea of using surface > plasmons to bung neutrons into atomic nuclei. NASA has been "looking at it" > since 2005. So far nobody's house is getting heated." I might add nobody has > made a cup of tea with it either. > > Craig Brown, still, amazingly enough, a Steorn believer, is promoting this > clip as a breakthrough. It's nothing of the kind. There is no real theory > presented, there is no experiment, and there are no results. I am > disappointed that NASA would air such a contentless clip. I have no idea > what they're thinking. > >
