Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I
think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of
skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims,
which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the
same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small
funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will
examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not
meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many
people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity.
Ed
On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed.
I am glad someone recognizes it as such.
But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on
any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust
what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in
general?
I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation
field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because
this is merely an opportunity to "pitch" the idea "at one of our
other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley."
If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will
have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be
ignored.
It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just
handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying,
"give the man a chance to present at a conference." I sincerely
believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER.
- Jed
