On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do not understand what you have in mind here. Nature allows us to do > some things and not others. We have to work with what nature allows, not > what we would wish for in an ideal universe.[...] > > Obviously with more engineering R&D a self-sustaining Rossi reactor could > be made. > How is that so obvious, after your song and dance about what nature allows. I think it's obvious now, that if it is triggered by heat, and it makes heat, it's a matter of controlling how much heat dissipates to make it self-sustaining. And he's claimed 100 hours of self-sustaining already. That's enough for a whiz-bang demo. > It would not prove anything the present test does not prove. Mary Yugo > would insist it is fake. Robert Park would ignore it. Why bother? Just use > a different watt meter next time and all remaining questions vanish as > surely as they would with a self-sustaining reactor. > > > Well, that's not consistent with your previous statements about the need for an isolated self-sustaining device that remains palpably hotter than ambient as a demo that could not be refuted. I think that's right, but it just never appears, even though cold fusion is supposed to have an energy density a million times that of dynamite.
