home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!UB.com!zorch!fusion
- From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
- Subject: Jed Clears the Air?
- Message-ID: <009673AC.35391160.16262@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
- Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
- Reply-To: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
- Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:39:22 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- If we accept the latest missive from Jed Rothwell as CF gospel we have
- the following:
-
- << They know the fuel is water.... They know that the fuel contains >>
- << thousands of times more energy than gasoline.... >>
-
- << They needed to do 200 experiments over 2 or 3 years, like McKubre.>>
-
- Last time I heard anything about Mckubre's work it involved the use of
- D2O with ordinary water serving as a blank that produced no heat. Just
- where are we, Jed, on the question of heavy vs. light water? You site
- McKubre's work as a prime example of careful and diligent experimenta-
- tion, but what has been learned from those 200 experiments? If you
- want to use McKubre's results as a standard for CF research, how
- can you jump ship on all the D2O experiments, and assert that "They
- know the fuel is water."?
-
- Then you return to your old challenge that "You must prove the heat
- does not exist." Wrong! As has oft been stated the burden of proof
- lies with you and other advocates of cold fusion. We skeptics can
- just sit back and watch you flounder about as you make your wild
- assertions without any logical basis in fact. "Heat" with no
- apparent source is going to be a tough commodity to sell. My
- advice, as always, is that you will have to track down the source
- before you attempt any development of cold fusion. The idea that
- water is a potential fuel has been tried before. You will have to
- do better.
-
- Dick Blue
- NSCL@MSU
-