Steven Krivit wrote:
Hello again Wesley...
Thanks so much for your thoughtful contributions. I don't know if I'll
be able to integrate all of them for this piece.
>I've added in some of those answers to yours. Can the answers be too
long?
Yeah. It's gotta be as direct and succinct as possible. My specific
goal is to keep this as lean and simple as possible. My overall goal
is not to argue each individual point, but to achieve a single shift
in awareness on the part of the reader, such that they may return to a
new place of fresh observation and interpretation, and perhaps
realize, "Hey, my previous beliefs about cold fusion are significantly
out-of-date and wrong."
chemical origin. *Infrared microscope/ thermographs measure nanoscale
hot spots that are hotter than any known chemical heat source.*
This is perfect. I will add it. I think the best reference for this
is: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSpolarizedd.pdf . Alternate
opinions welcome.
No go with that reference.
Myth 11: Cold fusion papers have not been published in reputable
journals.
Fact 11: Over 55 peer-reviewed journals have published cold fusion
papers. Are the Fusion Technology journal, the journal of
electro-analytical chemistry, Japanese journal of physics,
disreputable? /*
Umm - I'm not clear what you are saying here. Is this a rhetorical
question ?
yes very rhetorical to the point of ironic.
Check the names of each I may have miss named the latter two. Add two
or three more to hammer home the message. The opponants of cold
fusion may say YES to this comment. We need them backed into that
corner. */
Not my style. I don't talk to the "hard-of-hearing."
Myth 13: Fleischmann and Pons were incompetent, according to William
Happer, Princeton
Plasma Physics Lab, and former head, U.S. Dept. of Energy Office of
Energy Research. "Just by
looking at these guys on television, it was obvious that they were
incompetent fools.”
Fact 13: A refined image does not necessarily correlate with
scientific competency. Fleischmann and Pons were reluctant to go
public and say too much. They knew the press would over simplify
their claims and Dr Fleischmann thought some things should be
classified. Their mix of unease and enthusiasm showed.
Yes, I agree. I am missing something here and will integrate this
point. I can tell that you have listened carefully to my two audio
recordings of Martin.
Cheers,
Steve
Good luck.
