🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DsC3FC.B9L@eskimo.com>, billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) wrote:
->Isak Sebastian Lytting (ilytting@dk-online.dk) wrote:
->: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
->
->:  > The devices do not work.  They don't even come close to working.
->
->: Oh, you have studied them in detail, have you?
->
->
->Perpetual Motion is impossible.  Therefor if the device works, it is
->not PM, it is tapping an unknown energy source.
->
->If there are any ways to tap nuclear energy via low-energy pathways, I
->don't think mainstream physics will find them.  


The only known low-energy pathway to nuclear energy, muon catalyzed fusion, was, 
in fact, discovered through mainstream science.  Please give credit where credit 
is due.


->They are too close to
->"Perpetual Motion," and will definitely attract ridicule rather than
->interest.  


Where are the examples of "Perpetual Motion" or "close to Perpetual Motion" 
where interest rather than ridicule is due?


->Look at "cold fusion," where there are recent claims of massive
->heat output (no proportional neutrons though,) and many papers being
->published in little-known journals.  But the whole subject is treated with
->contempt by the mainstream.  


To the contrary, the subject has been actively investigated by competent 
researchers, and the preponderance of the evidence shows the methodologies to be 
faulty.  This is not Peter Pan's Never Never Land -- wishing doesn't make it so.


->Doesn't matter how many kilowatts an
->electrochemical cell produces, or for how many hours it runs at a time. 


Open your eyes, Bill.  There have been no reputable kilowatt-level 
demonstrations that lasted for micro-seconds, let alone for many hours at a 
time.


->We all "know"  that CF was disproven, and so we ridicule the current
->sucesses, "know" that the researchers must be crackpots, and give venemous
->reviews to any papers seeking publication.


Again, open your eyes, Bill.  There are neither current nor past successes. 
Given the track record of ENECO/CETI, a characterization pathological science is 
generous. We "know" the that the ENECO/CETI "sucesses" amount, at best, to 
intellectual bankruptcy.  You're investing your personal integrity in a dog that 
won't hunt.