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 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
This exchange motivated me to pose some question to the group. It is
my understanding that if the observed reactions were accomplished,
using conventional nuclear reactions, there would be considerably
more energy would be evolved than is being observed. Perhaps
researchers can figure out the energy is going. Perhaps they can
figure out how the reactions can be made to happen on demand. Because
of the occurrence of rare isotopes, there is no question that nuclear
reactions are occurring. Perhaps there is a use for which rare
isotopes, can prove useful.
