Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wow! Mary Y relays your post !! http://blogs.**scientificamerican.com/** > cocktail-party-physics/2012/**10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-** > case-against-cold-fusion/#**comment-473<http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/#comment-473> > > Jed Rothwell writes on another forum . . .
That was nice of her! Her copy of the message has not vanished yet. I expect it will soon. I think it is unlikely that technical glitches deleted that message. The other message has survived longer than I expected. Apparently you are allowed to quote the Director of the Max Planck Institute, even though he does not write on Wikipedia (being deceased). I am keeping copies of these messages. If we win, history will not look kindly at Ouellette. By the way, I suspect that Robert Park may actually have read some papers and he may actually know something about this field. He skirts the issues and frames his arguments in ways that make me think he knows more than he lets on. I think he denies reading anything to give himself "plausible deniability." I am pretty sure the editors of the Sci. Am. did not read anything. They do not skirt any issues. Their statements are flat-out wrong, and idiotic. They resemble Taubes, who says things like: "there is more electricity on weekends which is why cells seem to produce more heat." It never occurred to him that: 1. This is nonsense; power generation is adjusted to meet demand. 2. People measure input power. 3. Excess heat is not correlated with weekends. Someone told him that the heat comes from the weekend, and he is sticking to that. - Jed
