On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> The existing level of good research almost certainly proves than nuclear > reactions can occur at low temperature. No. That's manifestly wrong. If it almost certainly proves it, then experts who examine it would say that. But 17 of 18 of the DOE panel said the evidence was *not* conclusive, and the mainstream continues to disbelieve it. Therefore it is *not* proven. > To be in denial of that evidence by skeptics is no more than intellectual > dishonesty. > > No. You're the one who's dishonest. By saying it's proven, when it's not. Proof by assertion is not proof at all. > Look at Blacklight Power after running through maybe $80 million. Are > they close to market? They're not even close to proving they have an effect. > > BTW the need for enriched isotopes explains why many visitors - notably > Krivit, were not shown a working device. No one was shown a working device, where by working I mean a device that proved nuclear reactions were producing heat. > The Rossi reactor may sometimes work with the natural ratio of nickel-62, > which is under 4% - but it is hit-or-miss. No. It's a miss or miss more. > > The need for isotopic enrichment explains many things in the Rossi saga. > > No it doesn't. It's just a wild ass speculation to rationalize his failures.
