Edmund Storms wrote: > I hope you are right, Jed. But I can hear the response to any request. "I > agree, evidence for CF exists, But you have no idea why or how it works and > you can't make it work very often. We have an energy problem we need to > solve right now using methods that are better understood. So come back when > you have more understanding". How would you respond to such a rejection?
I would ignore it and look for someone else who understands how science and research work. There are many unhelpful people. We need to ignore them and continue looking for enlightened people. > Until someone can show how the effect can be > made to occur every time on demand, I don't think we can get much public > funding. Meanwhile, slow progress is being made using private funding. Most funding for cold fusion is public, especially DARPA and the Navy in the U.S., and the Italian national nuclear laboratories. I do not think it is necessary to make cold fusion occur every time on demand. I think that with the experiments we already have we could convince more people if only we presented the experiments and the data in a more convincing fashion to a wider audience. I believe that cold fusion researchers have often failed to take advantage of the opportunities they have been granted. This > is the right approach and will eventually provide the information demanded > by public funding agencies. We have public funding; we need more. We have often maligned the government in this business but actually it has done more for cold fusion than industry, universities or other institutions. - Jed
