How disappointing. Once again, it looks like yet more "jam tomorrow".
So, there aren't enough details in the paper for you chaps to theorize what the actual physical test set up consisted of? Anyone care to take a WAG at it? Also, it's odd that other than in the paper's URL on http://newenergytimes.com/ the document isn't dated (in fact the only date I noticed in it is "1992" embedded in the URL of a citation). [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:16 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>responded snarkily: > Mark Gibbs asks rather impatiently,**** > > “Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at > the very least as proof of CF/LENR?”**** > > ** ** > > Very simply and obvious reasons… lack of details of exactly how, and > patent infringement!**** > > The testing at SRI is getting underway and hopefully will go a long way to > achieving what you ask.**** > > ** ** > > -Mark Iverson**** > > ** ** > > *From:* mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark > Gibbs > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:20 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability**** > > ** ** > > If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the > poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community > exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would > show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read > about scores of theoretical systems and theories that it seems no one has > actually made work reliably and here you're claiming the Godes/McKubre > system not only works but works reliably!**** > > ** ** > > Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the > very least as proof of CF/LENR?**** > > ** ** > > [mg]**** > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote:**** > > Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote:**** > > ** ** > > Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in > multiple tests (over 150)?**** > > ** ** > > Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before.*** > * > > ** ** > > There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I > suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do > not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not > remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it.**** > > ** ** > > Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, > on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not > going to worry about it.**** > > ** ** > > - Jed**** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
