Newsgroup sci.physics.fusion 26839

Directory

Bob Sullivan wrote:
> 
> In article <56bkb6$jdc@stratus.skypoint.net>,
>    jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote:
> ->Karim Alim (kalim@us.net) wrote:
> ->: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote:
> ->: >(CETI et al.) are groveling on the street corner, trying to sell the devices
> ->: >bead-by-bead.
> ->
> ->: "Groveling on the street corner?"  Delightfully colorful description,
> ->: but hardly accurate
> ->
> ->Hey Karim, these are "trolls", well known tactics on the usenet to incite
> ->and inflame -- they are of no scientific value and should not be read
> ->that way.  It's an ego thing ... best ignored.
> ->
> ->There are valuable insights to be offered both pro and con, but you won't
> ->find such value in postings such as the one you just responded to.
> ->
> 
> Hi John!
> 
> You've always been one of my favorite trollees. I hope you understand that we
> trollers would be at a loss without you trollees. Of course, it's a mutually
> beneficial symbiotic relationship -- you trollees need the the trollers, too.
> 
> I'm (almost) surprised you didn't give up on the bumblers at ENECO/CETI after the
> PowerGen travesty (or even before) -- you seem to be rational in most other
> respects.
> 
> I can imagine the TBs made a run on (medicinal) lithium after PowerGen. I hope
> they've gone together on a group purchase to get through this one -- unless, of
> course, the TBs really do get their jollies from these manic-depressive cycles.
> Sadly, this cycle may be a short one, since Dick Blue has been so rude as to
> observe that, unlike the earlier fiascos, ENECO/CETI cold fusion transmutation
> self-destructed *before* making it to the launch pad.
> 
> BTW, help me out. Beyond 'There's a sucker born every minute.' and 'There's no
> fool like an old fool.', what are some, if any, of the valuable 'pro' insights?
I feel like putting a bit in here. About 10 months ago I talked with the
CETI lot
about getting involved with what they were doing. I didn't but that's
another 
story. At that time they told me over the phone about Miley's results
(which were
substantially what he has claimed in his paper). At that time Denis
Cravens expressed
concern that the results might be from contamination. I said I
hoped they would make P&f;'s mistake of making claims without allowing
anyone to
follow-up by with-holding key details. They responded by saying that
they would make
kits available soon after they released results. It appears they have
made good
that promise. So my little bit on the pro side is that Miley's results
have been
in the works for at least 10 months and that everyone was keenly aware
of the
immensity of the claims and the most dangerous false positives. It
appears the
main purpose of the release of the kits is to backup Miley's
transmutation claim.
Since up to 60 kits will be distributed, CETI will either have a
spectacular future
or die an ignoble death in a few months.
Martin Sevior
It appears that up to 60 attempts at replication will be made. You
should have plenty
to say in a few months when the results of the replicat

singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>Whoa, Dietz, I don't mean to be disrespective here but your statement
>could be taken to imply that there *is* a tokamak-based reactor design
>that is marginally competitive.
It isn't meant to imply that.
I was refering to paper reactor studies (Aries, Starlite).  Paper is a
wonderful construction material (almost as good as vu-graph plastic).
It is an interesting result when even the paper studies damn a concept
with faint praise.
     Paul Dietz
     dietz@interaccess.com
     "If you think even briefly about what the Federal
      budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately
      realize that we are drifting inexorably toward a
      crisis"
        -- Paul Krugman, in the NY Times Book Review