Keith Nagel wonders:
> The claim that he built one 30 years ago, then just dropped it > because 65 watts wasn't enough, borders on the bizarre. Would > you do this? If so, why?
OBVIOUSLY he did this because 65 watts is not powerful enough retrofit an automobile.
These inventors always plan to sell kits to retrofit automobiles.
You can award the story two points extra when the inventor wants to build some kind of indirect Rube Goldberg contraption, such as using electricity to generate gas that is burned in the internal combustion engine. Add three when he says the plan is to make the retrofit kits "under the radar" so that the government and oil companies do not notice. Add four points when he intends to compel his customers to sign an agreement promising they will not look inside the contraption to find out how it works.
> The whole "taking money for motors/distributorships then raging > at investor who complain when neither is forthcoming" business . . .
Another classic cliche! We should just assign them numbers. We could assemble the whole story from a checklist.
Forgive me if I sound jaded. Hearing these same stories so many times makes me appreciate why so many scientists dismiss CF without a second thought.
- Jed
