--- "Stephen A. Lawrence" <sa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I suspect not. CF (or LENR) is finicky, and no one
> is yet certain of the precise
> > requirements (though there are now a few claims of
> complete replicability).
> > Those who can achieve it have been trying for
> quite a while to get it right.
> > Even then, I think a reasonably well equipped lab
> is a prerequisite. It's not
> > something you can do in your garage, and expect to
> work.
Saying it can't be done in a garage is going a bit too
far. It depends on /what/ one has in his/her garage.
People are building fusors in their garages. It takes
brains, determination, cunning in designing with what
you can scrounge, someone to listen (hard to get), and
motivation.
> There is something else as well.
>
> There are some reproducible, repeatable experiments
> which work, if not
> every time, then a good fraction of the time. But
> reliability is not
> what stands in the way of making a tea heater.
> There are two other
> problems with making a gadget which does something
> useful.
OK. Exactly how do we set up the reproducible
experiments, what specific (read: NOT unobtainium)
substances were used, etc.? Why do we not concentrate
almost exclusively on that which we KNOW works, and
expand upon that? Make variations of this one setup
that demonstrates excess heat, eventually using
materials from different sources, testing equipment
from different manufacturers, and so on, and then toss
that into the public eye?
> Second, and more important, the same bugaboo that
> plagues hot fusion is
> at work here: The best of the wet-cell CF
> experiments is nowhere near
> breakeven.
It's as bad as all that? Why the hatred towards hot
fusion by the cold fusioneers? Seems neither is doing
well. The late Bussard's group a possible exception, I
am watching that one with great interest.
I will say this: an army of willing amateurs is
nothing to sneeze at.
--Kyle
