Hi Ed,
I can't disagree with anything you have said, except for the
implied idealism: that eventually everything will work out for the
best if we simply continue to follow the tried-and-true recipe
which has gotten us this far in science.
Do we have the luxury of that methodology: i.e. to understand
everything in detail first - and then build gradually from that to
series of ever more complex prototypes and then decades from now -
a final product ? Granted, it is generally the most logical and
efficient way to proceed - but not the only way.
Certainly, that normal methodology of science is the way it should
have been done, starting in 1989, but is was not. Now in 2006 we
are getting to the point where we have blown a trillion dollars on
an oil-war, are essentially broke as far as new energy-initiative
which can be easily financed publicly, and we find that frozen
arctic methane is reaching the point of catastrophic release,
glaciers are melting rapidly, gas prices are soaring, and still
very few in government are willing to make the big commitment
(either Manhattan style, or Brooklyn bridge style) to investigate
valid concepts which many of us here see as having been
demonstrated years ago.
Is it time for some risk-taking? Some of the more cautionary
ecologists think that unless we can make some very lucky
educated-guesses on the course of new non-fossil-fuel technology,
prior to everything being well-known in advance, then we may be
doomed by circumstances and not even have the opportunity to
proceed normally. That is a radical viewpoint, but not without
merit.
I am suggesting only that, given the mounting risks of preceding
slowly, we might be better advised to try leap-frog a few of the
normal intermediate stages of progress, and possibly recoup a few
of those lost 17 years.
Jones
Well Jones, I suggest you are starting with a false assumption.
Calorimetry is considered proof in every other field and in
every other application. Good calorimetry, i.e. that which can
not be questioned by a rational person, can be done and has been
done in the LENR field. Granted, a lot of poor calorimetry also
has been done. However, just because a few efforts are
incompetent does not mean all observations are wrong. Otherwise
most beliefs in science would have to be rejected. The doubt
occurs simply because scientists can not bring themselves to
believe an idea that is at odds with accepted theory. Add the
Myth provided by the press, and it is a wonder anyone believes
the claims. You are asking for a practical device before the
basic process is understood. Basic processes are always
investigated using laboratory style apparatus, which is always
inefficient. This would be like asking a person to investigate
how a transistor worked only after a practical transistor had
been made. Also, it is a waste of time to speculate how CF can
be applied or coupled to energy convertors before the process is
understood. People have to acknowledge CF is real but we have no
idea how or why it works. The challenge is to acquire this
understanding, not forever debate its reality.
Regards,
Ed
- [Vo]: Re: Bellowing about thermoacoustics Jones Beene
-
