I actually wondered if that could be the reason you already had not done so, of course now I have to wonder if it is specific to the idea or rather general, though I suppose I would need to leave that up to my imagination to work out..
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* John Berry > > > > Jones, have you read my variable capacitor post, subject: On Topic in > any detail? > If so can I have your opinion on it? I think it was you that actually > identified the > > patent co-invented by JLN? > > > > > > Cannot comment on that now due to a contractual agreement, John - but would > like to clarify the comment that Jed makes about the need for, or rather the > perceived inability of the “garage level” inventor to make a positive > contribution to LENR. > > > > This is both true and false. > > > > It is true that meaningful incremental advances, based on understanding the > minutiae of the process, demand a top-notch lab. It is also true that > accurately documenting positive energy gain or the nature of transmutation > products demands the best and most accurate equipment. It is also true that > other high-level scientists whose opinion matters (as to funding) are most > impressed when the work they are reading about comes from peer level labs, > like their own – if not from peers. > > > > Having said that – my strong belief is that the real breakthrough in LENR, > which will be the quantum jump so to speak – the one that serves to push > LENR into commercial reality - will come not from the University or > well-equipped lab, but instead from someone operating in a garage-type of > setting. > > > > By real breakthrough, I am referring to the situation where “serendipity > meets synergy” due to an inspired vision that is based on what has gone > before, but is totally off-the-wall in terms of the normal kind of > “incremental advance” that big-science likes to use as its prime motivator. > > > > It will probably not even originate from an attempt to use P&F type of LENR > principles at all. It will most likely be the discovery of an energy anomaly > which is later shoehorned back into LENR (or the hydrino) for explication of > the source of the anomaly. If you followed the iESi story, where the > reaction involved a hydraulic fluid – that is the “kind of” mash-up scenario > where a breakthrough can happen that is “commercializable”. Even the Arata > situation could be modified into commercial breakthrough – say by combining > the key feature of it (nano-particles at the Forster radius) with another > “synergy not anticipated thus far” – such as the addition of RF, lasers or > ultrasonics. > > > > Years ago, older vorticians may remember that Vince Cockeram almost made > such an paradigm shift. He witnessed a true runaway reaction that portended > the gigantic kind of breakthrough which will happen soon. Had he been better > funded to continue that work (and/or had air-conditioning in his work-shed) > he might have succeeded then … > > > > … but IMHO the real breakthrough, when it arrives, will most likely arrive > from what can be called the “fringe-of-the-fringe” - and NOT from that > million dollar lab setting which is so good at making the incremental > advance or documenting the details. > > > > The big “enabler” here is the internet itself… to first disseminate info > from the big labs – and then to host the focused discussion (fringe) groups > that stimulate the imagination of the ““fringe-of-the-fringe” inventor > genius. > > > > Long live the fringe… > > > > Jones > > > > > > >
