***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? ***Ummm, did I not mention the X-Prize, which generated 50X more interest and investment than the original prize offered? Or am I missing something?
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
