I undesrtand your reasoning, and from that point of view it is right. the claims are claims. but when someone own assets (reputation, investment, clients, ...) claims have a concrete effect that varies depending on the future, in which they have more data than us. Only them know if their claims are right or wrong, but their belief or knowledge have an effect on their strategy, even if they are irrational a little.
so when i hear a claim, I translate into commitment, image risk, cornering. they can be self deluded, but , unlike you are supported by a strong group like is the mainstream, the delusion cannot be too far from facts. I have received data from them, and also behavioral data, and competence signals. It is easy to differential a hollywood movie bomb, from a terrorist bomb, and you can even guess their intent, education, culture and competence from the design. DGT gave strong signal about managing details that match a real capacity to sell to public (safety, regulation, green/ROHS). they have made rational choice that mean that when choosing, they choose the standard, simple, recognized alternative (H2 circuit, metal, shape, shielding). They have proposed some key design that mean that they have touched a real complex reactor, and found an uncommon but smart control technique. of course , those evidences are not easy to transfer to third party (maybe you ca read the technical discussion, but part of the evidence is in my experience, yet maybe some other is in someone else and I missed it). finally there is a good reason to lower the standard of proof, it is that reading Celani, Pianteli, Focardi, all of that is SIMPLE to do (for a gang of engineer with budget, i mean like LHC one magnet is easy to build). the only real concern I have is that nobody else in the LENR community (for mainstream they are self-delusioned and won't recognize their mother with a LENR logo T-shirt) seems to have success in making a powerful gas reactor. Maybe short budget, maybe just hiding and preparing for fast sales soon,.... however alternative are not coherent either. DGT might have problem on longterm usage (the buzz is possible), but their claims, on the horizon of few weeks, and as far as they could test, was correct when done. And latest behaviors show that they were anyway confident, and betting their balls. The same kind of reasoning with Concezzi and NIWeek, make me hugely confident. we should stop being afraid of our shadow. LENr is normal physic, and LENR energy is more rational industry than renewable. I've noticed that behavior of oppressed minorities (like bikes on roads. see http://www.johnforester.com ), that integrate the beliefs of the mainstream, despite the facts that everyday prove the opposite, and even for those who oppose strongly the mainstream. It is very hard not to absorb the mainstream values (I think it is the subject of some cognitive science sector, on which I've read some article), even if you know it is wrong. I see everyday very various pathological science, there are some in LENR who look pathologic, but mainstream is crowded with such too. Without the support of groupthink, LENR is quite easily cleaned from bad science. 2012/7/8 Guenter Wildgruber <gwildgru...@ymail.com> > Alain, > You most probably make an error of judgement. > > DGT up to now delivered 'facts' which I could assemble on a sunday > afternoon (like today). > Peter Gluck did a good job of briefing them, so at least they are coherent > in WHAT THEY SAY! > What they DO or HAVE is an another matter altogether. > Rossi is telling us that the sun is rising when in fact it is setting. > Beautiful, when he talks to his believers. > Rossi exactly delivered nothing except blabbering about his second > generation of vaporware. > Not far behind is DGT, which exactly did what? Deliver nothing. > > To repeat: I think, as a matter of fact, that LENR is real, but not nearly > as far to commercial application as Rossi/DGT claim. > > The next two months will show us the evidence. > Please do not be disappointed.. > At least I will not, because it is hard to disappoint a pessimist/cautious > realist (not pathoskeptic). > > Guenter > > ------------------------------ > *Von:* Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> > *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Gesendet:* 16:36 Sonntag, 8.Juli 2012 > > *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations > > In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree, > For DGT I have passed the "I cannot explain". > With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data > and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few > details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt. > > For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable > lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others > reaction and claims. > ... > > >
