Incorrect? WHAT? She specifically says she thinks bubble cavitation might be doable.
It may be a waste of time, it may even be incoherent (many people who think Cold Fusion is doable, often are) but the fact is obvious to anyone who bothers listening to the video that Pam thought the problem was we don't have technology yet and that electrolysis + Palladium are not doable. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:21 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Incorrect. I listened to her incoherent blathering of The Catechism well > around the 23 minute mark and all she did was continue blathering The > Catechism. > > What a waste of time. > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Blaze Spinnaker > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Pam was actually optimistic about Cold Fusion (watch around 23 minutes) >> .. >> >> It's the Palladium approach that she really doesn't like. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:53 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> "Hey Pam, the generation of scientists that ridiculed cold fusion is >>> also dying. What are you willing to do if it turns out we had to wait for >>> them to die in order to find out that P&F's cold fusion claims were >>> substantively true?" >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:28 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> A video dialogue about hot and cold fusion between Fred Gain of >>>> Universe Today and Pamela Gay of CosmoQuest. >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjeJs1DZygw >>>> >>>> At 9:30 they start talking about P&F's experiments and Pamela concludes >>>> that it was an error because it turned out that subsequent experiments >>>> which supported P&F excess heat claims were in error. However, Fred Gain >>>> asks why some scientists are still investigating this failed science and >>>> she responds "we're just waiting for that generation of scientists to die". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>> >>> >> >
