I agree, no theory will cause a Western government to provide funds
for LENR research for the reasons John states in the article. However,
a useful theory would allow the active conditions to be described and
created. This ability would allow the effect to be replicated at will.
This ability would attract funding. In other words, the CONSEQUENCE
of the theory is what is important.
The problem we all face is that the critical issue is not being
identified. Absence of a useful theory by itself is not the problem.
The problem is that we can not agree on what is important or how to
solve the basic problem. The basic problem is the impossibility to
cause the effect at will by anyone who tries. Yes, individuals have
had success, including myself. This success is short lived and rarely
replicated by another person. We had hoped this problem would be
solved by Celani. His wire, if it were active, could be supplied to
anyone who wanted to explore the effect. At this time, the wire does
not appear to produce the claimed power. Why is this the case? A
theory would answer this question. Without an answer, no one would
want to risk money chasing a ghost.
No, I'm not part of the effort described by John.
Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
Hello group,
Defkalion GT chief technical officer John Hadjichristos occasionally
writes comments and answers questions on Peter Gluck's blog EGO OUT
[1]. I think this one posted today might be worth of some attention:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013/02/strategic-principles-of-lenr-and-their.html?showComment=1361136108932#c5631682400193533930
This paragraph in particular:
[...] We have allocated already funds for common R&D and
theoretical interpretation to specific distinguished members or
teams of the existing "LENR" research community, providing them
full access to our experimental data and resources. Hopefully the
expected results of such "focusing to objectives" activities will
start showing up in papers within 2013.
Even though experimental data and resources is most probably under
various NDAs, I wonder if those selected members and teams from the
"existing LENR research community" are are among known posters from
Vortex or CMNS (a private mailing list to which I have no access)
and if their involvement with DGT (that is, their exact names) is
under NDAs as well.
Some disclosure here would boost DGT's public image a bit.
Cheers,
S.A.
[1] http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/
