The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Hi gang... wow!!!||Date: 5/28/2013 2:27 AM|
|Author: intercst||Number: 72301 of 83178|
<<<It has been 5 weeks now. Are you still working on the model or are you conceding to Ray?>>
Oh, no concession... frankly, I'd let it brew on low heat on my tasklist. I didn't think there was any sincere interest here... it felt like teaching phlebotomy to a jehova witness conference.
Am I wrong? Is there a real interest for learning something so contrary to what wants to be believed here?
I guess it's kind of like Cold Fusion. It would be wonderful if it worked. But every time the data gets scrutinized by someone who can do the math, it fizzles.
The California Institute of Technology, led one of the most ambitious validation efforts, trying many variations on the experiment without success, while CERN physicist Douglas R. O. Morrison said that "essentially all" attempts in Western Europe had failed. Even those reporting success had difficulty reproducing Fleischmann and Pons' results. On April 10, 1989, a group at Texas A&M University published results of excess heat and later that day a group at the Georgia Institute of Technology (i.e., Georgia Tech) announced neutron production—the strongest replication announced up to that point ... Another attempt at independent replication, headed by Robert Huggins at Stanford University, which also reported early success with a light water control
I remember one researcher at MIT hypothesized that Cold Fusion only worked in the presence of Division 1A Football.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|