In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Wed, 05 May 2010 09:31:04 -0400: Hi, [snip] >At 04:58 PM 5/4/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: >>I wrote to Bushnell: >> >>"I do not agree that the Widom and Lewis Larsen >>theory deserves credit for bringing attention to >>the field. I think that is mainly caused by >>improved results and widespread replications. . . ." >> >>His response is below. In a second message he >>granted permission to share this message. >> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> >>You are of course correct, The piece was heavily >>edited, even after I asked them to stop such. >> >> YES 20 years of Experiments HAVE convinced >> folks that is REAL, WHATEVER IT IS. The >> experiments are not, IMHO , indicating how to >> make this really useful in terms of quantity >> and quality of heat, and neither are the >> fusion-related theories. As I indicated, we >> here have cored down on W-L and can find >> nothing obviously untoward. We have used the >> theory to devise surface morphologies which >> should, if the theory is correct, produce MUCH >> more heat. We are also setting up experiments >> to determine whether the W-L theory is correct >> [ or not]. I have checked with others doing >> experiments and cannot identify folks that are >> looking into the voracity of the W-L theory. If >> you know of such please so indicate. >> >> Best >> Dennis Bushnell >> Chief Scientist >> NASA Langley Research Center > >Great. Head on straight. Perhaps they are better >at understanding W-L than I. I see from it, as >have others with better understanding than I, a >host of problems with W-L, so that's the one >thing that puzzles me, "nothing obviously untoward."
I think they just meant that no miracle was required. IOW this was the one theory they could accept because it more or less fits within the current paradigm, and therefore has the highest credibility in their eyes. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
