I disagree Nick, even the old timers in Cold Fusion can learn from newbies, as surprising as it may seem. A few recent examples taken from this newbie's one year experience in the field:
1/ Only last year I taught Michael McKubre how to derive simply the thermo-neutral voltage in H2O electrolysis (cf 'JHS questions on evolved gas energy in CF' thread). He requested permission to quote or paraphrase my derivation with credits, kudos for that, he behaved like a great scientist. 2/ Only a few months ago I taught Melvin Miles and Mitchell Swartz the general definition of 'anode' (which they both called wrong, and never admitted afterwards having been wrong themselves in doing so, I say they didn't behave like great scientists) 3/ Even now I am in the process of teaching Edmund Storms what 'electrolysis' means, which I am sure he will acknowledge gracefully. I have more examples if you're interested. So you see even the mothers of all grandmothers are perfectible in the art of egg sucking, and admitting they are makes them even greater great grandmothers in my view. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer > Harry Veeder wrote:- > > <<It is more like the difference between burning gasoline as a liquid vs > gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the > gasoline, the COP is still much bigger>> > > No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out using an > accelerator (gas) pedal as an analogy. I don't know how long you have been > around, but Jed and I and Ed Storms and Terry Blanton have been commenting > and arguing about this subject since the news broke in 1989. Many people > have brought up your point before. Most people "skilled in the art", and > those who follow them, realise that the electrolysis is only a means of > preparation of the conditions necessary for CF to occur. The fact that "heat > after death" is a well known phenomenon, where there is no further > electrolysis (no input electrical, or other, energy) but heat continues to > be generated for some time ( approaching "infinite" COP), shows the relative > meaninglessness of chasing this form of "COP" - which is exactly what Ed > Storms said originally. Try not teaching your grandmother to suck eggs for a > change... >
