Jones Beene writes: "In principal and in the perfect-world, that would be correct, Jed, but in actuality i don't see that ever happening - even if the Moller/Langmuir effect turns out to be very robust.
There are simply too many interested parties and competing agendas among the candidate 'replicators' [sounds 'alien-esque', already] and some nay-sayers will employ deliberately emasculated efforts . . ." Of course I agree there is tremendous opposition to any innovation, and especially something that appears, at first glance, to be a perpetual motion machine. There was even opposition to things such as integrated circuits (IC) and personal computers, which we now consider incremental, uncontroversial, and obviously beneficial. (IC were incremental but difficult, and the work of genius. The late Jack Kirby certainly deserved his Nobel!) I also agree that the locus of opposition is likely to be at MIT or some other mainstream institution. This, too, is the pattern of history. However, if a device can produce a 1:2 input:output ratio with good reproducibility, this opposition could not prevent rapid commercialization and, within a few years, complete vindication for the discoverer. That will happen provided the invention is presented to the world correctly, with a modicum of promotion. "Promotion" is called "marketing" in business, and in academic science it consists of writing and publishing rigorous, well-written papers. Fortunately you can do an end run around the journals these days, and publish directly on the Internet. At LENR-CANR, a well-written paper will be downloaded by 20,000 readers in a few months. If a paper described, worthwhile, convincing claims, the research will be taken seriously and it willl probably be replicated. A solid 1:2 claim would quickly attract a great deal of support, capital, and many independent replications. Supporters will ignore the opposition, and press on toward rapid commercialization. Actually, this has ha! ppened to a remarkable extent with cold fusion. Despite tremendous opposition, poor reproducibility, a low input to output ratio, badly written papers, and the inept, self-destructive behavior of many researchers in the field, there are commercial ventures in cold fusion, and if the people in charge of these ventures do their job right, they may make prototype products (heaters and perhaps even engines). Such prototypes would quickly overwhelm opposition from MIT or the DoE. Again, this has been the pattern of history, and one can point to countless examples of both science and technology that succeeded by doing an end-run around the opposition, rather than trying to confront it directly. Unfortunately, every researcher, inventor and corporation that I know that is involved in CF appears to be stricken with the Inventorâs Disease. They have all made disastrous errors promoting their findings. Instead of encouraging replication and giving the public reason to feel confidence in their professional skill, these people have acted as their own worst enemies and alienated the public. They seem to be frauds, liars or lunatics -- and I suspect some of them are. Even if there were no opposition to CF in a perfectly rational world, many of these people would never be taken seriously, and no one would replicate them. Any rational, experienced businessman who looks at the web sites for some of these people, such as the Correas, will instantly dismiss them as thieves and/or lunatics. It is not a close call or an iffy decision; they stink from miles away. Of course this is only an impression, and impressions can always be wrong, but you would have to be very open-minded ! before you even bother to go beyond the web site and think seriously about the claims. And even if you do take the claims at face value, and you visit, measure the effect, and determine that it probably is real, you would still have to be nuts to invest money with people who act like this, and publish statements like this. Even if the machines work exactly as advertised, it seems extremely unlikely to me that the inventors would be capable of commercializing them. As for someone like Mizuno (or Mel Miles, or me, for that matter), while Mizuno is scrupulously honest and he is a scientist down to his fingertips, he would be the first to admit that he knows nothing about money, commercialization, intellectual property, managing commercial research and so on. Mizuno by himself would be incapable of developing a commercial product. If he fell into the hands or an unscrupulous promoter, or an incompetent corporation, his discoveries would never see the light of day. Such problems have done far more damage to CF than the opposition ever did. - Jed
