Jed Rothwell posted,
and Ed Storms responded
Actually, the article was good and the statement about cold fusion
was accurate. Cold fusion is not yet a source of energy of any
value. Cold fusion is, however, a demonstrated phenomenon, which
might have a value in the future, a possibility the a
At 10:53 PM 7/24/2005, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Also, corroborating this, we have made electricity for years using
cold fusion systems [since before our
first report in Fusion Facts (Hal Fox, editor) a decade ago when a small
light bulb first turned on by CF,
Are y
ginal Message -
From: "Steven Krivit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: Article on energy in National Geographic
Mitch,
I haven't been following this thread closely. Did I read that you are now
able to light a light bulb?
Steve
Mitch,
I haven't been following this thread closely. Did I read that you are now
able to light a light bulb?
Steve
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Also, corroborating this, we have made electricity for years using
cold fusion systems [since before our
first report in Fusion Facts (Hal Fox, editor) a decade ago when a
small light bulb first turned on by CF,
Are you claiming that ten years ago you were able to
Reading the posts on this subject by the various personalities in the group
only reinforces my belief that this body of thinkers have some special comaradre
that borders on the unique.
The strength of the group is not in its total agreement but it's simple
ability to function and cohere rega
Christopher Arnold wrote:
Ed,
Some people love to distort the true intent of a post by quoting out of
context or nitpicking to cause an argument. Both tact's are
counterproductive but to be expected in any endeavor designed to
increase our understanding of Fusion science or even general
At 12:13 PM 7/24/2005, Ed Storms wrote:
The issue is what we consider to be useful. A laboratory instrument is
useful when it produces reproducible results based on an understandable
process. The level of power only has to exceed the sensitivity of the
detection devices by a suitable amoun
Mitchell Swartz wrote:
At 11:50 PM 7/23/2005, Ed Storms wrote:
I think people in the CF field know and appreciate that two separate
issues are important to the field. The first addresses whether the CF
effect is real or not, and the second addresses whether commercially
useful energy can
At 11:50 PM 7/23/2005, Ed Storms wrote:
I think people in the CF field know and appreciate that two separate
issues are important to the field. The first addresses whether the CF
effect is real or not, and the second addresses whether commercially
useful energy can be produced. It is clear t
Ed,
Some people love to distort the true intent of a post by quoting out of context or nitpicking to cause an argument. Both tact's are counterproductive but to be expected in any endeavor designed to increase our understanding of Fusion science or even general science, as some are against pro
I think people in the CF field know and appreciate that two separate
issues are important to the field. The first addresses whether the CF
effect is real or not, and the second addresses whether commercially
useful energy can be produced. It is clear that the effect is real, but
it is not yet
At 06:34 PM 7/23/2005, Ed Storms wrote:
Actually, the article was good and the statement about cold fusion was
accurate. Cold fusion is not yet a source of energy of any value. Cold
fusion is, however, a demonstrated phenomenon, which might have a value in
the future, a possibility the article
Edmund Storms writes:
> Actually, the article was good and the statement about cold fusion was
> accurate.
Oh. Good. Since I have not read it, I did not know the context. That sentence
alone sounds bad.
- Jed
Actually, the article was good and the statement about cold fusion was
accurate. Cold fusion is not yet a source of energy of any value. Cold
fusion is, however, a demonstrated phenomenon, which might have a value
in the future, a possibility the article leaves open.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mitchell Swartz writes:
> How good could the article be with such inaccuracy about cold fusion?
>
> The Real Deal, The verdict so far: Cold fusion is achievable by hard effort.
I agree that this National Geographic comment is awful, and I think Ed agrees.
But as they say in show business, any pu
How good could the article be with such inaccuracy about cold fusion?
The Real Deal, The verdict so far: Cold fusion is achievable by hard effort.
Proof: Update to the Cold Fusion Times (volume 12, number 2)
is up at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html [click on pic for
larger pic].
On Thursday 21 July 2005 18:29, Edmund Storms wrote:
> The National Geographic in the August issue has a good article on the
> energy problem. They even mention cold fusion - "A few scientists have
> claimed that cold fusion, which promises energy from a simple jar
> instead of a high-tech crucible
The National Geographic in the August issue has a good article on the
energy problem. They even mention cold fusion - "A few scientists have
claimed that cold fusion, which promises energy from a simple jar
instead of a high-tech crucible, might work. The verdict so far: No such
luck." The art
19 matches
Mail list logo
