Ed, I have a question. You stated that, "I only know that we tested the CNT and the test failed."
Did you use a coherent light source, which I believe was specified in Chris's patents? -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > -----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. Jones, I agree with your comments and these are the reasons I paid any attention to Chris in the first place. In addition, that CNT were a plausible location for LENR was obvious before Chris entered the picture. I had been trying to make them for study, but Chris already had them available, which accelerated the effort. Nevertheless, no claim, even by someone as famous as Einstein, should be accepted without more proof than a patent, especially a parent than has not been reduced to practice. > >> 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? I'm not saying the measurement was done incorrectly. I'm saying we have no way of knowing whether it was done incorrectly or not. Therefore, the evidence is not worth considering. Why spend time discussing something that might not be true, especially when we have many very interesting observations that have been proven true. > >> 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. Jones, you do not believe everything you are told. How do you decide which part to believe and which part to ignore? Is only a PhD in physics and a successful business enough for you to believe anything a person tells you? > > 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. OK, let me be clear, if shining a light, such as Chris used, on a CNT could produce LENR, the phenomenon would have been seen long ago. I can not tell you exactly what Chris did for legal reasons and he does not tell enough in the patent for you or anyone to know what he actually did. You seem to want to defend his claim for some reason. I, on the other hand choose to ignore his claim for the reasons I give. What are your reasons for accepting his claim? > > 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. WHAT?? What does this information have to do with our discussion? You seem to be drifting off into an entirely different subject. > > 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 and If. Yes, if the if is true, this is important. Meanwhile we have a huge amount of information that is not based on if. Why not give it your attention? > > 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. At least 7 different methods are known to cause LENR in at least 5 different materials. I have no favorite. I only know that we tested the CNT and the test failed. This does not mean that all CNT will fail or that the CNT might not work under much different conditions. When enough money is provided, a variety of CNT can be tested more carefully. I'm only saying that CHRIS HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT LENR OCCURS IN CNT. Therefore, it is a waste of time to pretend that the CNT is a NAE for LENR based on his claim, especially since no other claim has been reported. Of course, the CRT is an OBVIOUS possible location for the LENR, but so far that obvious possibility has not been demonstrated to me. > > And let's face it, if Cooper is correct, your own theory is severely > damaged. You apparently have no understanding of my theory. I claim a gap is required and that LENR does not occur in the chemical lattice. If the gap in a CNT works, this would support my theory because this gap is outside of the chemical structure. However, this kind of gap is not normally required to cause LENR because the CNT is not present when most LENR is observed. > 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. OK, you are desperately trying to find support for the SPP being the initiator of LENR. Good luck. Ed Storms > > Jones > > > >
