Edmund, why not pitch your proposed research program so we can vote with a clear conscience?
https://ultralight.wufoo.com/forms/future-energy-application-form/ On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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 > > >
