*our best source of this precious info will be cut off for no good reason. What good does it do for Jed to undercut anyone in this field, especially such a rich source of info.*
DGT isn't basing their decisions to release information to the public based on what Jed thinks or has to say on the subject (or any of us for that matter). As I said, I'm keeping an open mind, and I'm willing to give DGT till at least this summer to produce something of relevance (assuming their statements about independent testing, etcetera, is true). I don't see much point in being hyper-negative about the entire thing either. But to say they have been a "rich source of info" is a dubious statement, and to think that they definitely will be a "rich source of info" in the future is also a leap of faith based, I think, on your own emotional/psychological attachment to them. Again, you hint at all this valuable information, but it seems only you and Peter are privy to it, leaving the rest of us in the cold. *Jed is narrow in his priorities, all he is interested in is boiling water.* Jed may rub you the wrong way and be a tad snarky & hard-nosed sometimes, but that's a bit silly. Are you doing the same by questioning your own priorities and reasons for defending DGT, as much as you question Jed's reasons for challenging them? I'm not so sure. *So what if DGT has made some mistakes at this specialty. Why risk the flow of rich LENR experimental info for water boiling mistakes that everybody makes? It is just so unfortunate.* I don't think we're risking anything by being critical. DGT doesn't give a damn what we think quite frankly. The only thing that matters is them living up to the standards of their investors, which doesn't seem to be happening at the moment. I'll agree with you that the situation overall is unfortunate, and I'm happy to give them a bit of time to respond/prove themselves, but criticism and negativity is not exactly unwarranted all things considered. But at the same time we can still root for them. It would be silly not to. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Experimental information describing the Ni/H reactor is dammed hard to > come by. With the negativity toward DGT shown by much of the LENR elite, > our best source of this precious info will be cut off for no good reason. > What good does it do for Jed to undercut anyone in this field, especially > such a rich source of info. Jed is narrow in his priorities, all he is > interested in is boiling water. So what if DGT has made some mistakes at > this specialty. Why risk the flow of rich LENR experimental info for water > boiling mistakes that everybody makes? It is just so unfortunate. > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I haven't made up my mind one way or another, I want DGT to succeed as >> I've always had a certain amount of belief in them despite their >> shortcomings, but in regards to labeling Jed as biased, couldn't the same >> be said of you? I.e. that it's comforting to think Gamberale >> is unfairly attacking and trying to undermine DGT for no good reason, who >> you've based much of your theory crafting and had some variety of >> relationship with for awhile now? You always seem to claim they've proved >> far more than they have. Jed is not the only one with doubts, and you have >> some sort of personal involvement with DGT (whatever it is) that could be >> clouding your judgment as well, so we should quit with the armchair >> psychology unless we want it turned back upon ourselves. Anyone who says >> it's "for sure" this way or that is taking a rather large leap of faith and >> not a wait-and-see rational approach. I'll leave it at that. >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Human nature demands that you believe the guy who states exactly what >>> you want to believe. >>> >>> Gamberale gives Jed a warm feeling. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>> "I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked for a comment. He didn’t >>>>> dispute the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric >>>>> set-up at the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale >>>>> confirmed this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict >>>>> instructions from Defkalion, and that when Mose added some component, such >>>>> as another independent flow meter or another method for measuring thermal >>>>> heat output, these additional components were immediately removed by >>>>> Defkalion personnel without discussions." >>>>> >>>>> If they are not swindlers . . . then for some reason they are trying >>>>> to make themselves look like swindlers, when they do things like this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> As has been mentioned, we don't know much about Gamberale. I recall >>>> that his conclusion about the flow meter was validated by others you know. >>>> But I haven't heard about validation of all of his statements, especially >>>> the ones concerning his being made to do this or that. We have two >>>> different accounts that conflict in spirit, one in which Xanthoulis says >>>> that Gamberale decided how to do the measurements, and one in which >>>> Gamberale says that Defkalion decided how to do the measurements. >>>> >>>> To be sure, even with what has been substantiated, the situation is an >>>> embarrassing one for Defkalion. But I am not persuaded one way or the >>>> other that Gamberale's account is not an exaggerated or misleading one in >>>> some details. It would be nice to know more about him or to have >>>> third-party verification of some of the other things he's saying. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
