I've noticed a pathology in this discourse that boils down to a conflation, hence confusion, of research with development. This conflation has two main historic sources:
1) Government funded technology development often times will conflate research with development because there is a lot more money in development than in research. A good example is the Tokamak program which is viewed as an "R&D program", but the real purpose of the program is cash flow. 2) The cold fusion fiasco of the century has resulted in such a vicious attack on research that the ordinary product of research -- which is pursuit of reproducible experiments -- has been driven "underground" so deeply that the only hope many have salvaging research is someone like Rossi coming out with a commercial product. This is to answer the "I'll believe it when I can ...." mentality explicitly stated by "scientific" authorities. Both of the above conflations of R with D are tragic. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > > Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce experimental > results without theoretical understanding. I'm not sure that thesis is > correct. > > ] > > No that is NOT what I said. I said that successful application reqires > knowledge about the basic process. This is required to amplify the process > and control power production, as well as to satisfy the regulars. Hundreds > of experimental results have been produced without this knowledge, largely > by chance. That is why the effect is so hard to replicate. > > > > Ed Storms > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this is >> a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in the >> field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People simply go >> their own way regardless of the obvious problems and conflicts with >> reality. >> >> Many people, including myself, have made the effect work and reported the >> results. In addition, several of us have published attempts at an >> explanation. So Swartz is not unique. The question is, "Is his >> understanding correct?" As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, >> how do you decide? >> >> Ed Storms >> >> On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: >> >> Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should >> definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and >> frankly, way beyond my understanding. >> >> >> But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting >> massive investment and recognition from labs everywhere. Once billion >> dollar labs take it seriously, that's when you will see the technology >> advance very dramatically. >> >> I believe Swartz is trying to do exactly that with Nanor, and he's doing >> it in an open, transparent way. This is exactly the mature, scientific, >> selfless approach I've been waiting for. >> >> In my opinion, it could turn out to be the great reflection point in LENR. >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is >>> real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a >>> person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is >>> worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information about how >>> LENR works. So far, this approach is not bring used effectively. All >>> present explanations can be shown not to explain the process. A person can >>> disagree about what kind of explanation might be correct, but the present >>> explanations are clearly wrong. Until this situation changes, I believe >>> investment in a device will produce very little of value. >>> >>> We are like a person in 1800 being shown a smart phone and being asked >>> to make another one. You can imagine all the explanations of how it worked >>> that would be discussed, with none of them being even close to the correct >>> one. That is the situation now in LENR. People have no idea how it works, >>> yet they are certain they have a correct understanding. This is like trying >>> to design heavier than air flight before the Wright Brothers or a durable >>> light bulb before Edison. Why not invest in getting knowledge? >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: >>> >>> If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of Jet >>> Energy and test that. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> If someone asked me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I >>>> would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance >>>> of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. >>>> ***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in >>>> correspondence with the X-Prize committee, proposing a LENR replication >>>> prize for Techshop and following the MFMP recipe. I think that with a >>>> techshop, $100k, and some guidance, someone with as pedestrian an intellect >>>> such as mine could replicate those Gamma rays. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold >>>>>>> fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he >>>>>> be crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would find out. People such as Ed Storms and McKubre would find out. >>>>> It is a small world. People are not going to do research without word >>>>> getting out. I may not know where the money is coming from, but if someone >>>>> starts spending millions per year on cold fusion, they will have to hire >>>>> grad students and consult with people, and word will get out. >>>>> >>>>> If you are a billionaire but you are only going to spend tens of >>>>> thousands instead of millions, I might not hear about it. An investor who >>>>> does not spend millions is wasting his money. If we could get somewhere >>>>> with shoestring budgets, we would have made progress years ago. If someone >>>>> asked me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I would say go to >>>>> the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a >>>>> profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. >>>>> >>>>> - Jed >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
