DJ Cravens <djcrav...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jed- "Let me be blunt. I am sitting here with the data from 2.8 million > visits to LENR-CANR. I have it, and you don't. That makes me the expert. > Frankly, I think it is a little presumptuous for you and other researchers > to tell me what the audience for cold fusion papers does or does not want > to read." > > > > If that is the case why do you keep that information secret and not > publish it. > I did publish it! I just now gave the wrong link, but as I noted before I published it here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf I keep an updated summary here: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1213 Obviously, the individual records are confidential. > It sounds like you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. > No, not even close. > I HAVE presented papers, data, and methods of producing the effect. I do > not see where you have published this great information that you claim > makes you an expert. > I did not say I am an expert on cold fusion. I said I am an expert on what the public reads about cold fusion, and which papers attract serious attention. I am librarian. A librarian knows things that a chemist does not, and vice versa. These are non-overlapping magisteria, in S. J. Gould's pretentious formulation. > (But that, of course, assumes that the readers of LENR-CANR, are useful in > public acceptance.) > What other metric would you suggest? Can you think of a better way to measure what the public reads than tallying up 2,522,000 actual titles that the public has read? > It is presumptuous of you to think that others would just take your > word without data. How about just listing the basis for this great insight > instead of keeping your data secret? You owe it to the field. > You owe it yourself to read the paper I already provided. - Jed
