I understand your position Jed. You point is well taken about the need for verification of the data by independent organizations but I feel that any data at this time is better than none. I plan to operate under the assumption that the data is accurate and that the proof will be forthcoming fairly soon. DGTG will be placed in a difficult position if they supply data that turns out to be fabricated and not reflective of the performance that they have achieved.
My main fear is that the information will have major items missing that will be intentionally left out to keep our theories untenable. I consider this similar to what Rossi has done in the past. There is still a great deal of uncertainty as to the nuclear ash that his device generates. Perhaps no one, including the active parties, really understands what is happening within their LENR devices but the sooner the true processes are uncovered the sooner major improvements will occur. For these reasons I request that we be fed the important information as soon as possible but I request that they please leave out the misinformation. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious and unpatient. I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make claims of this nature without at the same time presenting independent confirmation. If this were an ordinary industrial process there would be no need for independent confirmation, but no one has ever seen cold fusion reactions on such a large scale. Rossi, for all his faults, has presented semi-independent evaluations by various observers such as E&K. They are not independent enough for my taste, but better than nothing. If Defkalion does not wish to present independent data, in my opinion it would be best for them to say nothing and present nothing. Frankly, if I were you, and I did not have independent data, I would say nothing -- nothing positive or negative. That standard does not apply to laboratory-scale claims of a few watts. They have to be published before anyone can evaluate them. A cold fusion reaction of 250 mW is itself a replication of earlier claims from other labs, so it does not need to be independently verified. - Jed
