Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: I would love it, but it seems no evidence can convince the mainstream... >
True, but we do not need to convince the mainstream. As I pointed out at ICCF17, we have many friends. We need to convince them first, and work our way up toward the mainstream: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf No one is trying to do this, except for the MFMP people. > Making a solid test protocol is hopeless. It can convince you, but > convincing you have no value for the mainstream MY mind. > MY and the DoE will be the last to believe, after everyone else comes aboard. We need to start with friendly people who are inclined to believe. Some of them need a little push. > Nothing can, simply nothing else commercialization. > I agree. Commercialization is the best hope. No one before Rossi could have done it. I hope he succeeds. Commercialization is best, but other techniques could have tried, and should have been. They were not. Cravens said he tried to appeal to corporations. Assuming he meant the CETI California demonstration . . . Well, imagine you are given an opportunity to sell your product to the ideal customer. You are given an hour with the CEO and his top people. And you show up at their office drunk, wearing a bathing suit, covered with mud. Patterson had an excellent cell. If he had only used it in a convincing demonstration, he might have gotten $20 million from Motorola. Instead, he wasted the opportunity in a *dreadful* demonstration. He and many others have thrown away opportunities. I know several scientists who had good systems. I could have gotten them money if they had only acted rationally and written a good paper or done a demonstration, but they refused. Mainly because of ego. Some -- like Patterson -- because they wanted "100% market share." Others, such as Cravens seem to have good systems that could easily be funded (assuming they work as claimed). But they refuse to make the effort to write a good paper or put on a convincing demonstration, so of course they will never be funded. I offer to help write the paper but they refuse. Then they have the chutzpah to complain they are not funded! It is like watching a guy hit himself on the head with a bat and then complain about the headache. > It they call me, I will accept to sign any honest NDA. > I would too, if I were an investor. I am a librarian, so I have no use for secret information. I have no money to invest. Other people need secret information so of course they should sign NDAs. I have no objection to the use of NDAs. In my circumstances an NDA would defeat my purposes. When I visit someone or talk to someone I always say: "Tell me no secrets. I only want to hear about things that you would present at an ICCF conference or would like to see published at LENR-CANR.org." - Jed
