[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MIT wireless energy transfer 'breakthrough' now vaunted by Science News ... (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:42:13 -0700
From: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: MIT wireless energy transfer 'breakthrough' now vaunted by 
    Science News ... (fwd)

What's worth doing or saying is worth doing badly, rather than not doing
at all. I suspect they won't read over a couple sentences to reach your
brilliant climactic theses, but rather seek to get a general impression.
Moreover, probably having a corrupt interest in promoting the
government-academia welfare-for-'scientists', they won't give a damn
whatever you say.

"Dear Sirs,

I hate to see politics corrupt your magazine's reputation and reporting
on hard science, the way other fields in climate and environment,
energy, evolution, stem-cell et. have become political. Your choice to
publish personalities or institutions rather than subject merit ruins
your magazine's objectivity and credibility.

Sincere regards"

There, that's better than nothing. Get to the point - the carrot and
stick; they publish junk, you won't take them seriously or pay for it.


	Not sure where you got your opinion of the AAAS and the editorial policy of Science but it's completely uninformed and off base. Letters such as you suggest will hit the circular file without reading.  An appropriate response would be to mention the article, point out that there was really nothing new there but arcane terms for physical phenomena which have been throughly understood and used by working engineers and scientists for over 100 years, and give appropriate original references.  Certainly a couple of Tesla's patents [the correct ones]would be referenced as well as earlier publications by Lodge and others.  It should be written in an objective frame of mind and avoid diatribe which only proves the author's lack of objectivity or sense of judgement.