On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold >> fusion' as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up >> in a dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..? >> > > The results are not a bit dead end. By the standards of experimental > science, cold fusion results were superb. Practically unprecedented in the > history of science. It was a totally unexpected phenomenon and it is still > not understood, yet within a few years there were hundreds of irrefutable > papers confirming it. If it were not for academic politics, every scientist > on earth would be convinced by the results from people such as Fritz Will. > See: > If Jed Rothwell didn't have his OWN agenda, instead of this knee-jerk response, he would have glossed instead that I am speaking really ONLY of the '*practical*' engineering outcomes of this basic scientific research -- you know: the shit MOST people are actually INTERESTED in. Like buying a dirt-cheap water-heater/electricity source/eternal battery/yadda. Jed Rothwell, scientific researcher extraordinaire, has misunderstood the easily-grasped (admittedly 'loaded') context of the term 'dead-end' above. Tsk, tsk.
