"::::: Not every''' researcher is a proponent of that which they research.  There are plenty of researchers who challenge published research (see the various publicaitons on cold fusion).  I'm not sure which other articles I supposedly don't hold to the same standard.  And I've never said we should proscribe sympathetic sources, either, only that we should strive for some kind of balance.  As it turns out the Cottrell paper tells us that there is'' no balance, because the only people writing about it are proponents and there is little debate in the journals.  I would love to see a special feature in one of the engineering journals on the challenges and opportunities of PRT, but that's not going to happen any time soon I guess because it is so far from being mainstream. 
 ::::: I'm not sure I've ever implied that it's impossible, only that the barriers are immense (which Cottrell states).  What we have here is a bit like the Artilleryman in the Jeff Wayne version of War of the Worlds - he paints a fantastic picture of an undergorund civilisation, then points to a tunnel thirty yards long which is as far as he's got. There is a gulf between dreams and reality in this subject, and what sources we have often do not adequately reflect that.  Stephen's work is good, though, and is actually very much along the lines of the intent of the changes I made when I first arrived here. I still don't understand why my position of scepticism (default in the scientific method) is beign portrayed as so extreme by others, especially since I am an electrical engineer by training and a big fan of gadgets of all types.  Are those in favour of this technology really completely unused to any kind of questioning of its relevance and feasibility other than from people involved in political lobbying?    

 "