this order is bad in real lifen and the rejection of LENR is caused by that pseudo-rational pathology...
in real life the inventors discover a phenomenon, try to make it useful... if it work, they are happy and try to optimize until all is blocked... if not they are blocked... when they are blocked, they try to build a theory to know where to look at... basically phenomenological model... with that they make it work as needed... finally scientist get the story and make a theory compatible with other scientific theory... theory is not a goal, but a tool to make things work, or kids happy (scientist a curious kids or bad scientists). 2012/9/19 Guenter Wildgruber <[email protected]> > my five cents: > > a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. > b) produce a working hypothesis > c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. > d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- > loop is established. > e) aim for 'commercial' level. > > Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. > Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. > Please spare me Edison or Tesla. > Bad examples. > Galvani being a better one. > > Guenter > --------------------------------------- > *Von:* Jeff Berkowitz <[email protected]> > *An:* [email protected] > *Gesendet:* 2:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 > *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability > > Godes probably wouldn't agree. Fwiw, he seems to be an advocate of an > electron capture kind of hypothesis as opposed to a fusion kind of > hypothesis. > > Electron capture hypotheses roughly substitute the miracle of coming up > with a missing ~0.8MeV (along with some quantum mumbo jumbo) for the > miracle of crossing the Coulomb barrier (and a different set of quantum > mumbo jumbo). Sorry to anyone I might offend with this offhand comment. ;-) > > From what little he says, his views seems distinct from Widom-Larson. > This was discussed in the group recently. > > Jeff > > >
