On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Horace Heffner <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > I don't think the calorimetry needs to be that good if there are no energy > inputs (electrical or chemical), and the test is run long enough. The world > will pay attention to the field again only when the talk of energy gain is > replaced by talk of energy production. > > > This is not necessarily true, and certainly not true unless useful amounts > of energy are demonstrated in a practical application. > > Just obvious amounts of energy, practical or not, are needed. In 1989, the world was prepared to speculate on calorimetric claims. After 22 years, I don't think anything short of obvious energy production (no inputs) will reclaim that sort of attention.
