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?
***The same way that Science has decided for centuries. Your theory has implications, so do others. We test according to those implications. I've seen Jones Beene post that the presence of nuclear ash will be devastating to Mills's theory. What would be CONFIRMAtion of his theory? Similarly with yours, what would be devastating, what would be confirmatory? Do those tests. The person who has had the most time on point with working reactors is Rossi. He's had the chance to test various implications and theories. He said to Krivit that it seemed like electron capture (maybe proton capture) was the best theoretical approach so far, not Weak Nuclear Force. It was at that point that Krivit started calling Rossi a fraud. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> James Bowery <[email protected]> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
