At 11:48 AM 9/15/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Even in the case of cold fusion, I do not oppose all forms of suppression.
For example, I think it would be premature to include a discussion of cold
fusion in a high school or undergraduate textbook. I do not think we
should embark on a billion-dollar Manhattan Project to develop cold fusion
energy. We do not know whether it can be made practical, so we should not
risk that kind of money. And, needless to say, many of the claims made at
ICCF conferences are weak, and many have not been replicated, so we cannot
believe them.
- Jed
Wrong.
Cold fusion science and engineering should be taught to undergraduates.
Wrong.
There SHOULD be a multi-billion dollar Manhattan Project to further
develop the most successful cold fusion technologies.
Wrong.
Cold fusion science and technology IS being made practical today -- and
will augment energy resources in the future.
Many of the claims made at ICCF conferences (and especially in the
Fusion Technology peer-reviewed
papers) are quite strong and many have been replicated and/or shown to
be reproducible - and developed into solid engineering principles.
Perhaps some fanatics, because of a lack of substantial grounding in
physics and engineering or because of their own censorship,
appear unable to separate with reproducible precision the good from
the bad efforts.
Final comment: Suppression of science is wrong - from Galileo to today.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
"Fanaticism is always a sign of repressed doubts" - Iblis
Ginjo
========================================================
Cold Fusion Times http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into
materials ISSN# 1072-2874
JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html
Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
