I wrote:
> In 2003 an expert pilot with far more experience than Orville Wright had > in 1903 tried to fly a replica of this airplane at Kitty Hawk. He could not > get it off the ground. > Orville Wright had experience flying gliders. Nobody had experience flying airplanes in 1903! Actually making four flights with that particular airplane in high, gusty winds at the beach in December was an astounding accomplishment in its own right -- never mind inventing an airplane. Wilbur later said that after they become experienced pilots they would never think of hazarding a test with a new aircraft in such weather. After the fourth test, a gust of wind blew the airplane over and wrecked it. I have witnessed similar reckless tests of cold fusion, such as with an open beaker of boiling toxic electrolyte. The Wrights were superb athletes. They were the first in a long line of death-defying aviators described by Tom Wolfe. Orville was nearly killed playing hockey, when his teeth were bashed out. The two of them used to race bicycles at high speed on dirt roads after sunset. In the 1930s Orville drove a souped-up luxury car at high speeds. Legend has it that the Dayton police were told to look the other way and not issue many speeding tickets. They were also brilliant engineers, and well-versed in physics, similar to Neil Armstrong. (Armstrong was one of the go-to experts about the Wrights: he read their papers; he knew several people who knew them; and he wrote the Forward to the book by H. Combs.) > A mass-produced commercial device can be used by an ordinary consumer > without much training. The model T Ford was the first automobile that > really fit this description. The Apple Computer was the first consumer > computer of this type. > I should say "a mass-produced *consumer* commercial device . . ." Some mass-produced devices can only be used by experts, such Boeing 747s and gas fired electric power plants. A cold fusion device will be a consumer device, I hope. It would not be of much use to the world if only experts could use it. I suppose it might be the core of a gigawatt electric power generator. > Mills has not even passed the first test, as far as I know. He has not > produced irrefutable proof of existence. > I realize he claims that he has. I do not understand this proof. I do not think it would be difficult for him to provide proof that I do understand. Doing a clear demonstration does not seem to be a priority for him. Or for Rossi. - Jed
