Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes but as I pointed out thereafter - they did not fail and their report > says they did not fail, got significant overunity and wanted to continue - >
Naturally they wanted to continue, especially in view of their success with Arata and Case, and with Patterson's results. You can't blame them because they could not get funding. Not getting funding is not the same as neglecting. > and all you could counter with, is some kind of personal revelation or > recollection from Srinivasan . . . He said that during a lecture at an ICCF conference. > . . . which is not in the record and cannot be > checked out. > Of course it can be checked out. Ask him! > Besides which, this episode happened slightly before the NASA Glenn > validation. > Yes. I was talking about the 1990s and the period you characterize as neglect. It was more a case of not having the people and the money to do it. Piantelli was plugging away at the Ni-H system the whole time. It was never forgotten. There are dozens of promising techniques that should have been followed up on. They still should be. It is not a foregone conclusion that this is the best method of doing cold fusion. Mizuno and others may have discovered better methods. Getting back to your earlier message, cold fusion as a whole, including the Ni-H technique, constitute "the biggest missed opportunity in all of modern science." I couldn't agree more. - Jed
