James, you describe the basic problem very well. In addition, the
idea of basic science has a bad rap in the US because it is called
"playing in the sand box". This kind of study was once done by
graduate students or in government laboratories, but this source is
now very much diminished. For LENR, the source is invisible for the
reasons you describe.
Ed Storms
On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:14 PM, James Bowery wrote:
I've noticed a pathology in this discourse that boils down to a
conflation, hence confusion, of research with development. This
conflation has two main historic sources:
1) Government funded technology development often times will
conflate research with development because there is a lot more money
in development than in research. A good example is the Tokamak
program which is viewed as an "R&D program", but the real purpose of
the program is cash flow.
2) The cold fusion fiasco of the century has resulted in such a
vicious attack on research that the ordinary product of research --
which is pursuit of reproducible experiments -- has been driven
"underground" so deeply that the only hope many have salvaging
research is someone like Rossi coming out with a commercial
product. This is to answer the "I'll believe it when I can ...."
mentality explicitly stated by "scientific" authorities.
Both of the above conflations of R with D are tragic.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce
experimental results without theoretical understanding. I'm not
sure that thesis is correct.
]
No that is NOT what I said. I said that successful application
reqires knowledge about the basic process. This is required to
amplify the process and control power production, as well as to
satisfy the regulars. Hundreds of experimental results have been
produced without this knowledge, largely by chance. That is why the
effect is so hard to replicate.
Ed Storms
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]
> wrote:
Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then
this is a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration
exists in the field to resolve the problems in the various
theories. People simply go their own way regardless of the obvious
problems and conflicts with reality.
Many people, including myself, have made the effect work and
reported the results. In addition, several of us have published
attempts at an explanation. So Swartz is not unique. The question
is, "Is his understanding correct?" As you admit, you are not
qualified to judge. So, how do you decide?
Ed Storms
On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which
should definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's
brilliant and frankly, way beyond my understanding.
But there is another, perhaps far more important problem -
attracting massive investment and recognition from labs
everywhere. Once billion dollar labs take it seriously, that's
when you will see the technology advance very dramatically.
I believe Swartz is trying to do exactly that with Nanor, and he's
doing it in an open, transparent way. This is exactly the
mature, scientific, selfless approach I've been waiting for.
In my opinion, it could turn out to be the great reflection point
in LENR.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]
> wrote:
The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR
is real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing.
Unless a person knows how and why it works, which is not known,
the information is worthless. The important investment is in
acquiring information about how LENR works. So far, this approach
is not bring used effectively. All present explanations can be
shown not to explain the process. A person can disagree about
what kind of explanation might be correct, but the present
explanations are clearly wrong. Until this situation changes, I
believe investment in a device will produce very little of value.
We are like a person in 1800 being shown a smart phone and being
asked to make another one. You can imagine all the explanations of
how it worked that would be discussed, with none of them being
even close to the correct one. That is the situation now in LENR.
People have no idea how it works, yet they are certain they have a
correct understanding. This is like trying to design heavier than
air flight before the Wright Brothers or a durable light bulb
before Edison. Why not invest in getting knowledge?
Ed Storms
On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz
of Jet Energy and test that.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]
> wrote:
If someone asked me "what kind of research can I do with
$50,000?" I would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You
will have more chance of making a profit than you would putting
the money in cold fusion.
***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in
correspondence with the X-Prize committee, proposing a LENR
replication prize for Techshop and following the MFMP recipe. I
think that with a techshop, $100k, and some guidance, someone
with as pedestrian an intellect such as mine could replicate
those Gamma rays.
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell
<[email protected]> wrote:
James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote:
if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that
cold fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it.
Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't
he be crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it?
I would find out. People such as Ed Storms and McKubre would find
out. It is a small world. People are not going to do research
without word getting out. I may not know where the money is
coming from, but if someone starts spending millions per year on
cold fusion, they will have to hire grad students and consult
with people, and word will get out.
If you are a billionaire but you are only going to spend tens of
thousands instead of millions, I might not hear about it. An
investor who does not spend millions is wasting his money. If we
could get somewhere with shoestring budgets, we would have made
progress years ago. If someone asked me "what kind of research
can I do with $50,000?" I would say go to the racetrack and bet
the money. You will have more chance of making a profit than you
would putting the money in cold fusion.
- Jed
