Jones, I like your thinking about that some people wants "glory and megabucks" while others just want to know "why". I like the generous attitude and I think that AR should make liaisons with people who mostly wants to know "why" in as many ways as possible.The secrecy and the misleading maneuvers do not benefit anyone or the LENR field as a whole. I am sure that with just an ounce of creativity it is possible to create alternatives to secrecy. A hint- it is not patents.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > From: Eric Walker > > If we must choose between the two major non-nuclear > hypothetical sources for > power density in LENR – some version of the Dirac sea (ZPE) > seems to beat > out electron shrinkage by a country mile ... > > I rather like the imagery of something coming out of the > Dirac sea, which reminds me of the sci-fi stories and movies of my youth… I > guess the needed energy could come from dark energy or dark matter. > > Well, if the Dirac dimension is acting as a sink instead of source – then > energy is not exactly coming out. The semantics are difficult (like > multiplying two negatives to get a positive). CoE states that energy cannot > be created or destroyed; but can be changed from one form to another > (mass-to-energy which implies negative-mass to negative-energy). However, > that strange situation leaves open the gate for non-nuclear matter > (electrons, for example) to be depleted of mass-energy in our 3-space while > the transaction is balanced by negative energy being reduced in an > adjoining > dimension. Two negatives giving a positive – yet does anything really > transfer? > > Physicists leave themselves open to speculation on the > possibility of that stuff being converted into real matter and energy by > taking the dark forms seriously in the first place… they give the > impression > of being a Rube Goldberg-like consequence that is needed to save some > broken > prior assumptions. > > Today’s unexplained crude oddity is tomorrow’s stroke of genius. You > remember Rossi’s first reactor, right? You can see better craftsmanship in > introductory high school “shop” classes. However, the first cyclotron of EO > Lawrence was not much better – held together with wax and string. Sometimes > Rube wins the jackpot. > > The big difference is that Lawrence understood what he was doing > theoretically and Rossi does not. Yet AR has been apparently able to get > E-Cat to function most of the time. Luck plays a role, but perseverance and > learning-from-mistakes plays a bigger role. > > I just hope that we (the long-time followers of LENR) will get enough real > information to provide the answers and insight that AR may be unable to > provide by himself. He can have the glory, and the megabucks, which he > deserves - but there are some of us who only want to know “why.” > > Jones > > > > >
