ABD
Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any other method
that does not involve brute force smashing of the Coulomb barrier) as not
fusion to differentiate it/them from the popular perceptions of mainstream
science that Cold Fusion cannot happen because of the Coulomb
Nick Palmer wrote:
Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any
other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the
Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the
popular perceptions of mainstream science that Cold Fusion cannot
happen because
Nick,
Please look at Horace's prior comments on this in the archive. They are
right on.
By claiming a beta decay and an ultra-low momentum neutron - W-L do NOT
avoid the problem of fusion (including NA and transmutation). They merely
make it a secondary step and avoid talking about it. Plus
On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
[snip a bunch of stuff with which I agree]
I wrote: Windom and Larsen estimate slow neutrons to be absorbed in
less than a nanometer, 10^-9 meter, about 10 angstroms. That is about
10 hydrogen atoms, or 3 Pd atoms in width. If neutrons can
At 11:05 AM 3/23/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Nick Palmer wrote:
Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any
other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the
Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the
popular perceptions of mainstream
It strikes me as a good thing to have debate of public interest
regarding the causes of cold fusion and heavy element low energy
nuclear reactions. Better to argue about why it happens than if it
happens. However, it is also clearly useful to assume the integrity
of the scientists
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Better to argue about why it happens than if it happens.
And how!
T
(intended double entendre)
On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Better to argue about why it happens than if it happens.
And how!
My oversight. 8^) Once again a bad choice of words on my part.
Ultimately no one can
Looking about, I noticed the New Energy Times FAQ, updated April 15,
2009. We can see, in it, that NET had lost objectivity by that time,
reporting as fact what isn't proven or broadly accepted, apparently
based on the theories that Krivit personally prefers.
9 matches
Mail list logo
