On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed >> Storms: >> > > Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely. > Ah, so if Ed speaks "loosely" it's OK and forgivable but if I do such a thing I'm simply wrong? > The point is, it wasn't a theory, it was data. > Ed raised the issue of the necessity of a theory and I get/got his point and I agree that's the wrong term ... as I suggested, "technique" might be better as that's exactly what's the problem and, indeed, what the Wright Brothers had to contend with ... they had no theory just techniques that worked to greater and lesser degrees just as you explain regarding McKubre's preparation of loaded Pd. And here we come back again to the question of what is this thing that's called "LENR"? Let's call lab stuff such as Cellini's work and whatever Rossi and Defkalion are doing, "experiments." So: 1. There is claimed to be anomalous heat generation in some experiments 2. The experiments are not reliably repeatable 3. To date there is no theory that has been tested that explains the anomalous heat generation Is that a fair summary? [mg]
