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

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:05:39 +0200
From: Finn Hammer <f-h@xxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: MIT wireless energy transfer 'breakthrough' now vaunted by 
    Science News ... (fwd)

Correct me if I am wrong.

For over 7 years we have been telling everyone who suggested it, that it 
is impossible to transmit any useful amount of power the "Tesla way".

Now that somebody finally did it, we start complaining that they didn`t 
credit Tesla for the idea.

Have I misunderstood this thread completely?

Cheers, Finn Hammer

Tesla list skrev:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:41:40 -0500
> From: Scott Stephens <radon86@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: MIT wireless energy transfer 'breakthrough' now vaunted by 
>     Science News ... (fwd)
> 
> Tesla list wrote:
>> From: Jim Lux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ...
>>> trying to figure out how to write a scathing letter in polite, objective terms.  Haven't gotten there yet
>> I am in exactly the same position.  Every time I start revising, I 
>> get frustrated because it's just *so* lame.
>>   
> 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.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
>