Ed, I agree (I think). My hope is that the Li-battery industry with a projected market in the tens of billion$ should have strong incentive to produce a safe product.
Imagine the law suits if a new "improved" battery brings down one (or two) jumbo jets - not to mention lost revenue from people who stop flying. - Lou Pagnucco > I find these discussions about LENR to be an amazing example of how > people can have beliefs that are in direct conflict with each other > and even with reality itself. Let me give two examples. > > First, most people believe Rossi is a fraud and cannot be believed, > but they will nevertheless believe him when he claims his heat results > from transmutation of Ni. They believe him when he claims Cu is the > result and now when Fe is suggested. Yet, absolutely no evidence > exists for these claims. Nevertheless, long and detailed discussions > result. > > Second, materials of all kinds have been subjected to conditions > having a huge range of values. Temperature from near absolute zero to > millions of degrees have been used. Pressures from vacuum to those at > the center of the earth have been applied. Yet, nuclear reactions are > not initiated, except when a very rare condition is present. > Scientists rightly have concluded that chemical conditions cannot > cause a nuclear reaction and for very good reasons. Nevertheless, > discussions here pretend that this experience does not exist. People > suggest and seriously discuss how a nuclear reaction might be > initiated without any concern for this huge experience. > > As Robin succinctly summarizes "It surprises me that it doesn't happen > more often." My surprise is that this statement even needs to be > made. I know that reality has creased to exist in the political world, > but is this also true in science as discussed on the internet. Yes, > we do not know everything about Nature, but we know a lot. Yes, new > ideas are useful and fun, but must they have no relationship to what > has been discovered over centuries? > > As Lou suggests, we need a method that produces the effect reliably. > This goal is being sought but it must be based on a useful > understanding of the process. A useful understanding must be based on > what has been observed and how we now know Nature to function. Unless > these two requirements are applied, the effort to get this > understanding becomes a waste of time. Without the understanding, > trial and error becomes the only available experimental method. So, > please make a serious effort to add to the understanding. > > Ed Storms > [...]
