RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

AndyTheGrump? BLP has it in for Grump as well. They filed a law suit against him and others. http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/blacklight_power_inc._complaint.pdf Have no idea if BLP's complaint has managed to get any traction or not. I suspect it's gone

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

I agree with you Steven, not much will happen before it can be proven BLP has a product. However, to me it is really sad that BLP need to go to court to resolve this type of issues. IMHO there is no upside for either party regardless of the outcome. The only guys laughing all the way to the bank

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

>From Lennart, > ... However, to me it is really sad that BLP need to go to court > to resolve this type of issues. IMHO there is no upside for either > party regardless of the outcome. Indeed. IMO, there is really only one definitive way to settle the matter. Build a working prototype

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > Indeed. IMO, there is really only one definitive way to settle the matter. > Build a working prototype proving OU is occurring. Filing a law suit to go > after Grump and his cohorts accomplishes diddly squat . . . > Yes, this

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

I can't see most of the comments because I get a message that there is a coding error. Good luck getting Wiki to change their write up on cold fusion. I got banned from there for arguing with editor AndyTheGrump, who was obviously biased and wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

There's huge consensus about what works though. Why not establish that as a basis and just say other approaches are open questions? Why does everyone go to such huge effort to say "pyroelectric fusion which works at low temperatures isn't cold fusion because it doesn't follow pons/fleischman

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

Yeah, I know. It's like these people's brains are utterly broken. There is an implicit conspiracy (by BOTH anti and pro pons/fleischman people) to narrow define cold fusion as experiments done in the late 80s. The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just > end-of-times for these people. > It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture. There are some careful

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

Steven, I read the old NYT article just now and yes --- it specifically uses the term "cold fusion" several times in 1956 . wow. and yes, they are talking about muon catalyzed fusion at low temperature - the kind with lots of 24 MeV gamma rays as evidence of the reaction. Even though it was

[Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

I was reading the entry for cold fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion While I agree with this statement: *Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

>From Blaze, ... > I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold > fusion as completely doable. Perhaps it's time for you to update the Wikipedia article on CF in order to reflect this important matter. See what happens... Regards, Steven Vincent

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

>From Blaze: > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649D946792D6CF > I wonder if the 1956 article actually uses the phrase "Cold Fusion"? I'm not clear on that. I'm assuming it didn't. Interesting piece of research nevertheless. Perhaps someone

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649D946792D6CF Cold Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms; A Fourth Method Pulling Together 1956!! On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > There's huge consensus about what works though.