Steven Krivit wrote:
Hello again Wesley...
Thanks so much for your thoughtful contributions. I don't know if I'll
be able to integrate all of them for this piece.
>I've added in some of those answers to yours. Can the answers be too
long?
Yeah. It's gotta be as direct and succinct as pos
At 12:38 PM 8/14/2005, you wrote:
"Myth 1: Cold fusion is
'not reproducible,' according to Richard Garwin. His definition of a
reproducible effect is one that happens 'more often than
not.'"
That is a preposterous definition for "reproducible." If
something happens infrequently, that makes it dif
"Myth 1: Cold fusion is 'not reproducible,' according to Richard Garwin.
His definition of a reproducible effect is one that happens 'more often
than not.'"
That is a preposterous definition for "reproducible." If something happens
infrequently, that makes it difficult to reproduce, not irrepr
Hi Jones,
Can you provide a citation for 100% reproducibility for EE?
Maybe. But I won't try. It's generally used as a false argument to justify
ignoring the field.
People who use such arguments (For example, Google Bard on
newenergytimes.com) can, and always seem to find another excuse to
Hello again Wesley...
Thanks so much for your thoughtful contributions. I don't know if I'll be
able to integrate all of them for this piece.
>I've added in some of those answers to yours. Can the answers be too
long?
Yeah. It's gotta be as direct and succinct as possible. My specific goal
is t
Might I suggest:
Myth # 12 fact can be stated>>>
Many scientific endeavors are valid but not yet commercially viable
including thermonuclear fusion energy, superconducting power storage and
quantum computing.
Thanks Wesley. I think it will be better if I opt for the "less is more"
principl
> Steven Krivit wrote:
> I do realize the reproducibility claim can be argued, and
I welcome,
> and am prepared for such.
Thankfully you realize where the weakest link is already
the credibility of everything eventually rides on
reproducibility by independent laboratories. Reproducibility
b
Steven Krivit wrote:
Dear Vorts,
Would you please take a look at these and provide me with any critique
you may have, and also advise me if I am missing any?
Feedback within 48 hours will be most useful, though I will also
appreciate feedback at any time.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/tem
Steven Krivit wrote:
At 07:38 PM 8/13/2005, you wrote:
- Original Message -
*From:* RC Macaulay <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* Steve Krivit <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:15 PM
*Subject:* Cold Fusion myths
Steve,
The list reads
By the way...Myths and Facts of Cold Fusion / Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science is a compilation of my own work and that of Ed Storms,
which he wrote for the March 2005 APS meeting.
Thanks,
Steve
At 07:38 PM 8/13/2005, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: RC Macaulay
To: Steve Krivit
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:15 PM
Subject: Cold Fusion myths
Steve,
The list reads well.
Hi Richard, thanks for the encouragement and critique, both are
appreciated equally
- Original Message -
From: RC Macaulay
To: Steve Krivit
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:15 PM
Subject: Cold Fusion myths
Steve,
The list reads well.
Suggestions.. the title could as easily be called " Cold Fusion Facts"
rather than " myths" which
Dear Vorts,
Would you please take a look at these and provide me with any critique you
may have, and also advise me if I am missing any?
Feedback within 48 hours will be most useful, though I will also appreciate
feedback at any time.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/temp/MythsofColdFusion2005
13 matches
Mail list logo
