PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: >I keep on saying it: Bring CF to the people - both investors and users - >emphatically not the government. Once a decent application is created . . .
If a decent application could be created, we would not be having this discussion. If a researcher could make a cell produce even 10 watts reliably, on demand, we would convince the world in a matter of months. The difficulty is to get from where we are now to the point where we can "bring CF to the people." >Keep good ideas away from the government teat. People are quick to critisize the government, but the fact is, nearly all cold fusion funding and research has come from the U.S. Government. The best experiments have been performed in U.S. Navy labs, and many of the research outside of the government came from DARPA. As far as I know, after 1990 not one dollar has come from industry, or the universities, charitable foundations (except for one), or any other source. So far, Uncle Sam has been the most enlightened and best supporter. And that is not just true of cold fusion. As I have pointed out before, most of the breakthroughs in science and technology of the 19th and 20th centuries were paid for directly or heavily supported by the U.S. and British governments. Dozens of major breakthroughs from steamships to railroads, airplanes, computers, the Internet, the maser and laser, space weather forecasting and GPS, and most medical breakthroughs that would not exist were it not for government support. There is a lot wrong with the government, but it has done a magnificent job supporting technology from the time of the Erie Canal to the present. The only objection I have to this is that we, the taxpayers often foot the bill for R&D, but private industry ends up raking in the profit. If anything, we should keep the good ideas away from the corporate teat, or at least allow the government to collect royalties. - Jed
