It seems to me that the reading and analysis of the Lugano report that was done by Lunden and Lidgren was at best superficial. The information about the fuel and ash is very deep and needs to be mulled over for a considerable amount of time. The smallest experimental detail can make or break a theory.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an >> embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize >> the insurmountable problems. > > > I don't know. I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this > field -- it feels a little like what it might have been like during the > dawn of the scientific method. We need to encourage a learning attitude, > and people should be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a > stigma. As the authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this > understanding will either modify the approach they take, or at least > they'll know which concerns to address up front, knowing there will be > certain types of complaint (e.g., free neutrons, gammas, etc.). > > The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing > conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my > opinion. > > We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such > as the one by Lunden and Lidgren. In addition, we should be open to > fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts. > > Eric > >
