Hi Jones,
Actually, my approach is just the opposite of idealism. If we could
make a CF cell work well enough to make a "practical" demonstration, we
would not be having this discussion because the effect would be
demonstrated, whether we understood the effect or not. We can not make
this demonstration simply because we do not understand the effect well
enough to make it work on demand at high level. How would we get such
information? Normally, it is gotten because an effect is thought
important enough to invest money to obtain an understanding.
Fortunately, a few companies are doing just that with CF. They will get
rich at the expense of companies that ignore the issue, rather like what
is now happening with hybrid cars. We do not need to know everything, we
only need to know how to make the effect work. What part of this
knowledge would you leap frog? By the way, this was not the issue with
the steam engine and ignorance about thermodynamics.
Regards,
Ed
Jones Beene wrote:
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
