Mark, if you read subsequent messages you will discover that a
different of opinion does, in fact, exist.
Ed
On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
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/[email protected]/msg74653.html
[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg74654.html
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> 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.
