Dear Colleagues COP = 10, sounds quite fine however it's good to put this in context. PdD LENR has 3 problems:
weakness (it's difficult to measure) reproducibility (bad, unpredictible) ephemerity (it fizzles out early) In this case- was it a strong effect Watts, tens of watts, can it be repeated and reproduced, how long it can last? The information is still scarce. Was it really a promising effect as say Mizuno's unquenchable great cathode or Energetics' cathode no 64? Lacunary information is not good, it's mental masochism. We need solid data to be happy. Peter On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Robert Leguillon < robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Great news, and quite embarrassing for some. Ni-H could arguably to be > different enough from the original 1989 experiment to convince the public > that it's new. If JET is indeed demonstrating reliable 10x gains with > palladium, the question of past suppression is difficult to ignore. What > the field needs is an MIT press release. It would be a great way for MIT to > rise above its difficult past. And, to be honest, it would lend great > credulity to the claim. It's unlikely any mainstream news organizations > will take the story seriously if the quoted source is a dedicated > cold-fusion website. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:00:39 -0500 > From: r...@hush.com > To: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion.. \"openly\" demonstrated at MIT > > Hi Robert, I just got an update: > > the NANOR used in the present ongoing MIT Demonstration is a ZrO2-PdD > CF/LANR solid state quantum electronic device. > > http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/successful-cold-fusionlanr-demonstration-at-mit-again/ > > (Sorry I didn't post this on Vortex. I get the digest, and can't reply to > specific messages by getting the digest.) > > Yours, > Ruby > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
