---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic To: Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: Ed, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Mark, I don't know if you read my e-mail or not, but I do not post to > vortex, so this is my way of communicating. > > Jed, is right, the effect has been proven beyond doubt. You are correct > in stating that the effect has not resulted in a useful product yet. My > question is, so what? > So hat?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making significant claims about productizing something that they contend is CF/LENR. Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, apparently without much evidence, that we'll have "jam tomorrow." You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. Yes Mark, I know. The question is, "Does LENR produce useful energy or does it not"? If it does, the potential to create ideal energy is revolutionary, as you say. And I'm not in it for the science. I'm in it to discover what is real and whether the promise will come about. What is your goal? > What do you propose do do about this? > Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on to something and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. That is my goal as well. To do this a person MUST understand the science and know all that has been discovered. That is one reason I wrote my book about the subject. That is the reason I still do experiments, hundreds by present count. That is why I'm now attempting to explain the observations. Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. Rossi is slightly crazy. So are many people in science. This does not stop them from making important discoveries. The only important question for me, "Are any of the claims made by Rossi true"? After much study, my answer is some are true and some are false. Only the true claims matter to me. > Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims > Nope. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. I have the same goal. The difference is that many people read what you write and only a few read what I write. > or to work at getting enough funding so that the effect can be made useful? > Not my job. Not you job but a result of what you write nevertheless. You have the power to influence support or cool interest. Your choice. People who are ignorant of what has been discovered and its implications generally write negative articles because the claims do not look real to them. In contrast, when all that is known is considered, a writer has reason to support the idea. This is common human nature. No article is truly objective but depends on the knowledge of the writer. Some writers are ignorant and some are well informed. This challenge is especially important in LENR because the science is so unknown even to well informed people. Jed is especially well informed and expects this to be true of anyone who writes about the subject. > As for a testable theory, dozens of theories have been proposed to explain > CF. Most are not testable. I have suggested one that provides 12 testable > predictions. What more do you want? > I'd love to see those tests made. Me too, but this requires money and interest by a major laboratory. All else is useless wishful thinking. > Now, money and time must be provided to make the tests. Are you willing to > encourage such tests? > > Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... I have enough on my plate as it is. That said, if someone with deep pockets should ask me what would be a good outlier project to invest in, I'd definitely tell him or her to talk to Ed Storms. Good, that is all I ask. Also, when you are tempted to write that no testable theories have been proposed, I hope you think again about what I said and have described in papers. So, what are you doing about getting funding for you or someone else to test your theories? Funding comes because someone who has a lot of money reads about an idea and then seeks out people who can explore and advance the idea, generally with a profit in mind. Such people contact me occasionally. Unfortunately, interest has not reached the level required to test theory. People want what Rossi promises, a working device that can make money. Ed
