-----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms > Jones, why do you accept this [Cooper patent application] as evidence?
Ed - First off this is Vortex, not a peer review session. Cooper spent tens of thousands of dollars (possibly much more) over 8 years of R&D ending with an effort to patent the CNT device which is described. That would mean little if he had not already patented an advanced water filtration device and brought it to market. His prior success speaks volumes. IOW he is a successful inventor and apparently has training in nuclear physics, and is one who believes that he has seen indicia of nuclear reactions. It is true that detecting helium is harder than detecting tritium, which we all wish he had done - and it is also true that many reports of helium commensurate with heat should be doubted. However, Ken has reported that Cooper has an advanced degree in nuclear science and that should be taken into account... yet even without one, he should be given benefit of the doubt, due to his track record with CNT and business acumen. > The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. That is almost silly, given Cooper's business record and the expenses incurred in this work and his ability to hire an expert if need be. The specifications in the patent are adequate. There is sufficient information for a replication. Why did you not inquire as to how it was done (the helium measurement) instead of making vague innuendos that it was not done correctly? > The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are proven. This is not a proven claim. Bizarre comment. Neither are your claims proved, Ed ... and most of the skeptics put you in the same boat as CC. But all of us realize that you are credible, and AFAIK Chris Cooper has not been shown to be incapable of doing a simple measurement, or paying an expert to do it. Why should his experiment and claim be doubted without a bona fide effort to replicate? Apparently... in whatever you did to validate this work, you completely failed to use a coherent light source - so that effort was deficient from the git-go and probably not even worth mentioning - as creating a doubt. > In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. Ed, this comment: "on a material" is disingenuous. The material in question was CNT for goodness sakes ! one of the most advanced materials ever produced by science - and as a colloid in heavy water, and the phenomenon was probably subwatt. This "material" cost many hundreds per gram and represent millions of man-hour in advanced research both in the CNT and in the heavy water. This comment calls into question your motivation. Moreover, if helium was detected, as Cooper asserts - and this can be replicated - then this is one of the most important experiments since P&F. If helium cannot be detected in a bona fide effort, then it would be nice to know actually that - but failing to provide a light source is NOT a bona fide effort. > This method is not sufficient or even plausible based on what is required. Well, that is not a fair judgment, and you have not come close to making a case for that proposition - to the extent helium was actually detected. You many indeed know something which I do not know, but all appearances are that there could be another motivation on your part, and that you do not want to acknowledge that there could be several - in fact - many ways to accomplish LENR besides the one which you favor. And let's face it, if Cooper is correct, your own theory is severely damaged. This does not mean that you did not make an honest effort to replicate, but if you did not recognize the SPP route to gain - and then failed to use a light source to accomplish this route, then ... sadly ... you mind was made up from the start and of course your effort was not successful. I hope that you will at least inform Chris that you failed to consider SPP and that the experts at NASA think that SPP could be relevant to LENR, even if you do not share that view. Jones
