Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold fusion trends
Jed wrote.. Cold fusion is no better off today than it was in 2004, or 1995 for that matter. It is moribund. I think there is no chance it will survive as things now stand. The only hope is for a breakthrough that can be widely reproduced. I have heard about 1 or 2 such breakthroughs, but unfortunately the authors are not yet ready to go public. Howdy Jed, All battles are won and lost in the mind and later results show up as wreckage on the battlefields where great dramas are acted out from pre-arranged scripts. There are battles being waged over energy across the world. Some even believe they have all the answers. As the Brits abandon Basra in southern Iraq, a new scenario unfolds for future Iraqi oil production. There are countless numbers of these "events" being played out from Siberia to Venezuela to Nigeria. Wheels within wheels with wheeler -dealers shuffling the deck. An interesting link on coal http://www.nma.org/newsroom/congtest1998.asp# the testimony reads like a word battle between supposed gentlemen but the vehemence can be felt as if the coal industry is saying,, this means war and we will take no prisoners.Reading between the lines of reports on the Utah coal mine collapse one gets the sense that it's really all about money LENR is small potatos in war between titans.. not to wonder why CF research is almost nill. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold fusion trends
On 8/6/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Terry Blanton wrote: > > >Just curious: did you type this reply or did your voice recog s/w > >make up 'ememies'? > > I managed to type that. Voice input seldom makes that kind of error. I wondered if the s/w used a dictionary or simply phonemes (not simple)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme (Looking toward a multi-lingual s/w package.) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold fusion trends
Terry Blanton wrote: Just curious: did you type this reply or did your voice recog s/w make up 'ememies'? I managed to type that. Voice input seldom makes that kind of error. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold fusion trends
On 8/6/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess it did. But mainly I think it served as an opportunity for > the ememies of cold fusion at the DoE to attack the research. Just curious: did you type this reply or did your voice recog s/w make up 'ememies'? :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold fusion trends
Michel Jullian wrote: Hasn't the last review boosted the "trendiness" of CF? I guess it did. But mainly I think it served as an opportunity for the ememies of cold fusion at the DoE to attack the research. They set up a biased panel and an absurd review method. I expect they were surprised when half the panel members agreed cold fusion does exist, but that was a minor setback. They pushed through a review summary and recommendations giving themselves complete victory, and as soon as a qualified researcher (Melvin Miles) asked for funding, they blew him off, as I knew they would. They have not given an inch. Cold fusion is no better off today than it was in 2004, or 1995 for that matter. It is moribund. I think there is no chance it will survive as things now stand. The only hope is for a breakthrough that can be widely reproduced. I have heard about 1 or 2 such breakthroughs, but unfortunately the authors are not yet ready to go public. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold fusion trends
Michel Jullian wrote: Maybe we need another DOE review? We need that like a hole in the head. As I told Peter Hagelstein when the DoE review was underway, "be careful what you wish for." - Jed
