(sorry responded twice Michael sometimes it picks up vortex other times the sender) Michael, No I do have results. It's a little arcane with this dependent independent flux stuff. I need to make it better and more robust but there is definitely an effect 100% reproducible.
I haven't formally written the stuff up but I can give part numbers, materials and suppliers. Sincerely if you have suggestions on the style of the papers I'd be all ears. One of my supervisors did say that scientific writing is a skill that one learns for life. I know it has been a long time but first projects are usually difficult births. Looking back I have and probably still am making the experimental procedure difficult. I've had no guidance (or very little) and not much to bounce ideas off. This should change as I get more into the university system. I need to assemble a good team. Finding the right people and place is always difficult. All the best, I keep saying this is the last email. I'll lurk and subscribe when compelled which ought to be real soon with vortex :) R. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Foster Sent: 17 September 2005 11:32 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Why the method is important to CF As one of the nuts not covered with quite enough chocolate for your tastes, I have a couple of comments on this subject. I read the papers on your thermoelectric research and I must say it looks quite promising. These papers were written in a style slightly less opaque than the standard technical acadamese, but your concepts come through anyway. However, it seems as if this whole thing could be summed up as the CF researchers have results with no theory, whereas you have a theory with no results. M. _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
