--- Christopher Arnold wrote: > you sound upset with me for some reason.
Chris, This is not personal - this is about a prevalent attitude which unfortunatley exists throughout this general field of inquiry, LENR - which field has enough problems of credibility without adding another issue which goes deeper than it should: paranoia. I was only speaking to that broade "conspiracy issue" in the post before, and to what is known as "inventor's disease." I tried not to personalize this by not including your name then. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone expressing dissatisfaction with the problem of not getting the funding which you need to continue with your work - but it serves no good purpose to continually post disinformation and insinuation to the effect that there is some hidden "conspiracy" out there to suppress or steal whatever it is which you have invented. Quite the contrary - show just one replicated experiment, just one, where OU is clearly seen and the funders will "beat a path" to your door. You will not need an eBay auction - they will be lining up at your door with checkbook in hand. This is already happening with Naudin/Moller and guess what - they will get huge funding with a seventy year-old idea, which may not even be patentable. But they are interested in a GOAL, which is not personal enrichment but really goes all the way to "saving the world" from the self-destruction of over-use of fossil fuels. And there is nothing wrong with a pesonal-enrichment agenda either, so long as that is not the ONLY goal. That is the baseline fact - plain and simple - and let's not quibble: you may have invented something of significant value - say for converting waste to hydrogen or whatever- but you have not shown any evidence whatever that you have created a breakeven energy device - and if you have the results in hand - your failure to show real experimental confirmation is extraordinarily hurtful to your own efforts to market the device. That nebulous "conspiracy" which you keep insinuating is "out there" with Hal or Richard Hull, or the oil companies, CIA, the Canadians, or whomever, to somehow suppress or steal your work makes no sense to anyone - and must therefore be a product of you own imagination and paranoia. That is not the way the world works. We have a court system that punishes companies for theft - even $50 billion companies like Enron cannot buy protection. It might take a while, but that is the way the system works. And this "paranoia" is unfortunately proven to be an integral part of what Bill Beaty has described as "inventors disease". Please read the essay: http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/rules1.html If you indeed do have a proven and patented energy invention, then it is absurd to think it will be stolen because you have posted the results - this in fact reeks of the Joe Newman attitude - which is this: when you can't prove that your device works as claimed, then just insinuate some massive mysterious conspiracy and throw in a few letters like CIA or GM or GE or even Minnekota. Nobody with any sense nowadays even takes a second look at Newman, because of this silly attitude of paranoia and distrust- and sadly the same thing could happen to you if you continue to follow his lead on this. The difference is that you probably have something (actually even Newman might have) - but paranoia keeps it from getting out into public view. > So, if you still think Hal did not see the Chernetski device Hal stated clearly that he saw it, AND tried to replicated it, AND he found the measurement error and reported that to the inventor. End of story, since Chernitskii passed away and was never able to prove that it worked with better measurement. What good does it do anyone- to now claim that Hal was not telling the truth, that Hal has some hidden agenda or whatever - when there is no way to prove or disprove that the device ever worked - other than to build one which does work. Hal went to that expense of trying to prove it worked and found measurement error. There is NO conspiracy here. > Farnsworth's Fusor never produced Fusion, now that's > news to me as well. Farnworth device produced some fusion - sure - but nowhere close to breakeven - excuse me from leaving out the key word. It never came within one thousandth of one percent of fusion **breakeven** - yet you want to portray this as some kind of conspiracy to keep it silent. Anyone on vortex can produce some neutrons and some small evidence of fusion - the crux of the problem is BREAKEVEN fusion or better yet OU fusion or OU heat without fusion. Farnsworth never came close to any of the goals - but he was heading in the right direction, and certainly we all wish ITT had not pulled the plug - but they were looking at oil at $2 per barrel then - it is no wonder that they dropped funding and no evidence of a conspiracy either - just Economics 101 (which is to say= shortsighed economics). Richard and Scott and literally dozens of others, even high scholl students have replicated the Fusor and produced many neutrons, anyone can do that - the problem is or getting close to breakeven - or else, in getting to OU without real fusion as in the Moller/Naudin device. Richard will show you his clear results of 10^5 and more neutrons per second from deuterium- no problem. Philo even got to 10^7 neutrons per second. Well-known - no conspiracy there. You can even buy a device on line that will do 10^3/sec for a few thousand dollars. The problem is - and this is what you apparently have not digested yet - that this is a lot of neutrons but is still years away - 10^7 is actually about 100,000 times away from energy breakeven, if memory serves. Fusion is easy - "fusion-breakeven" is difficult; and that is where LENR comes into play as it 'lowers the bar' for P-in to P-out measurement. But in your case, Chris, no one has a clue to how far from breakeven you actually are now, because your will not publish the results in clear talbes (as Naudin does), or allow independent replication. The point being - THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY to steal or suppress your work - in fact, you are your own worst enemy if you believe that. If you really have reached breakeven in a fusion device, or if you have and OU ZPE device - then there is no alternative but to encourage it be proven independently - just as currently is being done with the Moller/Naudin device. Look at their new results online last week (thanks for the heads-up, Jean L.).... Fantastic improvement in just a month !! This is what it takes to get the dollars flowing: Independent replication. Any other approach is most likely going to back-fire. Jones
