On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the > X-Prize. > I agree. How do you suggest this be done? > ***Ummm, did I not mention the X-Prize, which generated 50X more interest > and investment than the original prize offered? Or am I missing > something? > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >> >> Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires >> money. >> ***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the >> X-Prize. >> >> >> I agree. How do you suggest this be done? >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> ***The same way that Science has decided for centuries. Your theory has >>> implications, so do others. We test according to those implications. I've >>> seen Jones Beene post that the presence of nuclear ash will be devastating >>> to Mills's theory. What would be CONFIRMAtion of his theory? Similarly >>> with yours, what would be devastating, what would be confirmatory? Do >>> those tests. >>> >>> >>> Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires >>> money. If the tests show the theory is correct, then more money is required >>> to amplify understanding. No one has the money to make the tests. So, I >>> compare my model and all other models to all past studies and to what is >>> known in physics and chemistry. The question then is which model can >>> explain, without additional ad hoc assumption, the most behaviors without >>> conflict with what is known? My model does this the best. Many models can >>> be eliminated because they conflict with what is well known in science. >>> >>> >>> The person who has had the most time on point with working reactors is >>> Rossi. He's had the chance to test various implications and theories. He >>> said to Krivit that it seemed like electron capture (maybe proton capture) >>> was the best theoretical approach so far, not Weak Nuclear Force. It was >>> at that point that Krivit started calling Rossi a fraud. >>> >>> >>> Yes, this explanation has no future. You will have to read my book to >>> know why because the explanation requires to much time to provide here. >>> >>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
