When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed.
It sure sounds like you now think a theory is required ... [m] [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74653.html [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74654.html On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > > > However, Abd misses a basic consequence of what a theory does. A theory is > not designed to promote LENR, to make it acceptable, or even to satisfy > skeptics.* A theory allows the process to be made reproducible and brings > the process under control.* The CONSEQUENCE of this understanding is the > important aspect of a theory. *Until we can bring the phenomenon under > control, I do not believe it will be accepted or made commercially useful. > * We will not arrive at this understanding without using some rules and > agreements about what needs to be explained and apply this information to a > explanation. The only issue of importance here is whether the discussion > contributes to this process or distracts from it. >
