On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires
money.
***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY,
like the X-Prize.
I agree. How do you suggest this be done?
Ed Storms
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
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.
Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires
money. If the tests show the theory is correct, then more money is
required to amplify understanding. No one has the money to make the
tests. So, I compare my model and all other models to all past
studies and to what is known in physics and chemistry. The question
then is which model can explain, without additional ad hoc
assumption, the most behaviors without conflict with what is known?
My model does this the best. Many models can be eliminated because
they conflict with what is well known in science.
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.
Yes, this explanation has no future. You will have to read my book
to know why because the explanation requires to much time to provide
here.
Ed Storms
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
