The problem Dave is that the theory determines the results. The design
of the apparatus and the expected behavior are all determined by the
theory. If NASA fails, this will be a black mark. Failure is not
treated the same way in LENR as it is in normal science. Beside,
anyone who has studied the theory must wonder about the competence at
NASA.
Ed
On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:21 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I am not sure anyone has a good answer to your question Ed. I do
not care what theory they are operating upon at the moment as long
as they keep plugging away. One day we might be able to set them
straight, but that will not happen if they give up too soon.
Encourage them in any way that you can for now.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
I added the following comment:
The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space
should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored.
This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well
explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would
seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better
consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a
universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question?
Ed
On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
>
> The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview
> with
> Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley
> Research
> Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”
> at
> NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of
nuclear
> power—IF theory is validated by experimental results.
>
>
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
>
>
