Christopher Arnold wrote:
. . . used the rest of my life savings building the prototypes and paying for testing that nobody would believe.
Plenty of people will believe testing if it is properly performed and properly presented. You have an audience here that is inclined to believe it.
I have seen many inventors whine and moan about people not believing them. When I have looked closely, in every case I concluded that they did not deserve to be believed. Whether that is true in your case or not I cannot judge -- obviously -- but most people, and 100% of investors, would never bother to look in the first place. Your attitude and kinds of things you have said here will frighten away a sane investor long before he gets around to evaluating your claims.
Cold fusion is still highly controversial, and most mainstream scientists say it is unbelievable. Many powerful people such as Robert Park and the editors of Sci. Am. are at war with it. But other people, who are more open minded, download 12,000 papers about cold fusion every month from LENR-CANR.org. In all, we have had over 670,000 visits. Of course many were merely taking a casual look, and many came to ridicule the subject, but I am sure many thousands of others take the subject seriously, and believe it has merit. The audience is mostly college students and professional scientists. (I can tell that by various means . . . and after all, who else would read this stuff?) So please do not tell *me* that it is impossible to find an audience for a controversial claim. Seek, and thou shalt find; ask and it shall be given unto thee.
A professional proposal, you mean like my 79 page Private Placement Memorandum, or did you mean the Power Point presentation.
I have not seen this 79 page document, so I cannot judge. I suggest you make it public. But in any case, 79 pages is about 70 pages too long for a scientific paper. If you are going to convince scientists (and scientifically minded people like me) you must do things our way, and present information in the format we expect and we are used to. If you will not do that, you will fail. As I said, you have to pick one or the other goal:
1. Convince people, or 2. Make you own rules for writing papers. Which is more important to you?
The problem with both of those is that every $cientist that reviewed the patent for prospective investors said for starters the patent was "Impossible" . . .
I suggest you need to find a better class of scientists.
Jed, you are a very intelligent man. On the other hand - you are still not able to advise me how to convince profe$$ional $cientists . . .
I have attracted 670,000 readers, mainly professional scientists. If I cannot tell you how to do this, nobody can. If you will not listen to me, who will you turn to? Or do you think it is better to kvetch and moan and throw away your life's work because mankind does not appreciate your sublime genius? If that is your attitude, I hereby diagnose you as suffering from a terminal case of the Inventor's Disease. You might as well drop dead now and take your invention to the grave, the way Meyer and so many others have done already. Given the self-righteous, self-pitying attitude you have evinced here, there is no chance you will convince people to look at your claim, take you seriously, or try to replicate.
If this sounds harsh, I apologize, but I have spent 10 years hearing this kind of stuff from people like you and the Correas, and countless others. I have had QUITE ENOUGH. You people are as bad as the "skeptics" and debunkers. You need to stop and think, try to get some perspective, and try to see things the way other people see them. You have failed because you refuse to do this, not because all scientists are closed-minded corrupt fools. (Mind you, many of them are! As I said, you need to steer clear of that type.)
Let me add that real scientists who have made real sacrifices, such as Mizuno, Fleischmann, or Miles, never complain, and they are not a bit self-righteous.
- Jed
