I wrote to Bushnell:
"I do not agree that the Widom and Lewis Larsen
theory deserves credit for bringing attention to
the field. I think that is mainly caused by
improved results and widespread replications. . . ."
His response is below. In a second message he
granted permission to share this message.
I also told him I do not know anyone working to confirm W-L, and I remarked:
"Sorry to hear they edited you to pieces. . . .
Editors . . . must think the Internet is running
out of space. Seriously, I can understand why
papers were edited and compacted in the days of
printed papers, but why do it nowadays?"
- Jed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You are of course correct, The piece was heavily
edited, even after I asked them to stop such.
YES 20 years of Experiments HAVE convinced
folks that is REAL, WHATEVER IT IS. The
experiments are not, IMHO , indicating how to
make this really useful in terms of quantity and
quality of heat, and neither are the
fusion-related theories. As I indicated, we
here have cored down on W-L and can find nothing
obviously untoward. We have used the theory to
devise surface morphologies which should, if the
theory is correct, produce MUCH more heat. We are
also setting up experiments to determine whether
the W-L theory is correct [ or not]. I have
checked with others doing experiments and cannot
identify folks that are looking into the voracity
of the W-L theory. If you know of such please so indicate.
Best
Dennis Bushnell
Chief Scientist
NASA Langley Research Center
