Jed, you have it correctly.Mark Gibbs is caught up in the current "pc
scientific way" of demanding a theory before experimental results can be
accepted.
It is even worse than that. Consider climate science.There the theory is
preferred to the actual evidence when the two diverge.The current AR5
has a phrase saying the results maybe either within the model limits, or
above them, or below them. (!) That the IPCC forecast has been falsified
apparently doesn't matter.
My direct experience of DoE is that they will follow policy from on high
no matter what the cost.Larry Penberthy (father of all electric glass
melting) and I made DoE a proposal that would save $100 billion cleaning
up the radwaste at Hanford.http://people.duke.edu/~mgg6/A67402113108.pdf
<http://people.duke.edu/%7Emgg6/A67402113108.pdf> but they refused to
consider it until /after/ a new contract had been signed to do what they
had previously planned.Their technical people were ordered not to talk
to us until after the contract signing.
Why not accept Andrea Rossi's statement. "It will not be believed until
working commercial units are on the market"?It looks like he was right.I
am puzzled by your statement that you have spoken to large investors who
confirm the E-Cat works but elsewhere consider it dubious.What seems
overlooked is that Rossi owes nothing to the general public but, as you
say, needs to convince his major investors.He appears to have done that.
The patent situation is ludicrous.I forecast years ago the lawyers stand
to make as much money from the mess as the inventors do from LENR.
