On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat <[email protected]>wrote:
> Maybe because it works as claimed and MIT wants to gain the academic high > ground by verifying Rossi and then asking the US gov for LOTS of research > money to study and improve the reaction? But that doesn't fit with the excuse usually put forward. MIT opposed CF because it endangered their precious research grants, not because it didn't work. In fact, it would be *because* it worked that it needed to be suppressed. Now, you're saying that they think it works, so they're jumping on board. It kind of suggests that before they thought it didn't work, which would be a good reason for them to argue it doesn't work.
