In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:03:59 -0600: Hi, [snip] >But Robin, how do you tell what is real and what is embellished?
You can't. You can only guess. >He >detected Cu in his material and assumed it resulted from >transmutation. Now we know that it probably resulted from chemical >transport from the container. Nevertheless, a huge amount of >discussion was based on this conclusion without any facts being >available. People ignored the normal isotopic ratio. They suggested >no method to overcome the huge Coulomb barrier and the resulting ~6 >MeV of energy that would be expected to be released as gamma >emission. What purpose is served by discussing incorrect conclusions >using incomplete ideas? > >Ed Storms ...because collectively we may come up with something that does work, even if it turns out that it's not what Rossi has. It reminds me of that story that was previously posted about the anti-gravity machine. As long as it's assumed to be possible, people will work on a way of achieving it, and eventually someone may succeed, even if the original device was a fake. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
