Re: Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research

In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:20:25 -0700: Hi Ed, [snip] Actually Robin, hydrino production has been ruled out. Cells are now sealed and contain a recombiner. If hydrinos were produced and did not react with oxygen to reform water, extra oxygen would accumulate

Re: Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research

Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:20:25 -0700: Hi Ed, [snip] Actually Robin, hydrino production has been ruled out. Cells are now sealed and contain a recombiner. If hydrinos were produced and did not react with oxygen to reform water,

Re: Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research

I am still mulling over that statement, and waiting for some reactions. I will upload it later today or tomorrow. Ed will probably want to tone it down. Suggestions and corrections from readers here are welcome. We should also write a letter to Sci. Am., or maybe add something to their on-line

Re: Re: Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering when someone was going to react to the Sci. Am. March article. Actually, Jed, I'm surprised it took you this long! I just noticed it yesterday, thanks to Google Alerts. I subscribe to the print magazine, but overlooked this item. My only suggestion would