Yeah but without getting political (Christ knows, this is the season for it) where is a clear exposition of the experimental facts? Especially with regard to setup, calorimetry, reaction intermediates. Forget the theory, what have they measured and what is the set up? Keep pushing that in the "minor" mainstream journals - engineering etc. and eventually the mainstream physics department takes it up.
You can kill off stuff by dressing it up in the wrong reasons. May be there is xs heat but no hydrinos? I agree with the general sentiments of this list - big physics is stifling science. They are incredibly arrogant, closed minded and over funded. Change a' coming. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 October 2008 19:27 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP? ----- Original Message ---- From: Remi Cornwall > I mean is anything generally accepted/corroborated, peer reviewed? On his site, you will find dozens of articles in "second tier" peer-reviewed publications (or lower). As far as the top journals - of course not. They will be the last to publish anything so devastating to mainstream beliefs - especially because of the high-profile of the most vocal skeptics (like Peter Zimmerman) ... but they will be forced to jump-in eventually, that is: if and when more of independent proof like this from Rowan arrives to bolster the case - or if marketable product gets out to the public first. ... i.e. forced to jump-in eventually just as if they knew it was important, all along... .... but you know, that's the way the world operates... or in the immortal words of the Blazing Mel Brooks - "we have to protect our phoney baloney jobs" Jones
