The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories.
However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a > completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to > take Ni-H to the required level of true "on demand" repeatability - over > many months. To wit, something like this: > > > http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri > cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ > > Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons > (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... > > They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 > nm > will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) > but > the "space between the excitons" as shown in this image is already there > (for Casimir pits). > > This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be > going into Ni-H now. > > We need to expend - not simply millions for R&D for this technology - but > billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will > be > 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up > in > the coffers of OPEC. > > Jones > > >
