Axil, I think your conclusion is too simple. I will give you an example from my life.
As a young business man it happened that I was interviewed by local newspapers. After a few interviews I was very disappointed and concluded; "To hell with the media they misunderstand everything". A few years later I had a corporate job and media was part of the job. A part I hated. However, after some time I had better luck and the outcome was more to my liking. (I am not saying I am good at it but I am better than when I was young:). What is the to find from that? That media has learnt to understand me? Nae, the other way around of course - I had figured out how to express myself better and in a way that I left very little room for interpretation. I think that we have the same issue with LENR demos. It is part of the 'job' to provide info and proof. It has to be done with integrity and without unclear assumptions/predictions. I also agree that if one cannot do the demos in a controlled way it is better to not do them. If not informing, there will, however, not be any recognition and in the long run the result is worth nothing. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > *It’s ironic, recent history has shown that public demos of LENR > reactors are counterproductive to advance the interests of those who do the > demos. Those who are in the LENR reactor business are well advised to keep > quiet publicly. Keep demonstrations small, private, and intimate.* > > > > *Workers who are associated with organizations that do public demos have > their integrity questioned and their reputations besmirched, and the > organizations are accused of fraud.* > > > > *The tendency to proclaim to the world how wonderful your accomplishments > are must be suppressed vigorously. Such demonstrations of pride in public > will only result in recrimination for all those associated with that > organization and the undermining of LENR in general. **Mum's the word.* > > > > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>wrote: > >> Of course it is kudos to Jed. Here some facts as I understand them: >> >> 1. I do not think Jed became a spokes person FOR DGT as they did not pay >> him as agreed. Seldom can you win support by mistreating people. I think >> that without knowing Jed (except from this sight) I can determine that he >> would not first publish a minor (money wise) dispute with DGT and then >> make up a reason their result is not true. He would take an unnecessary >> risk in doing so. Why not rather claim there result is false and discredit >> them if he could. (He will not get any money anyhow). No, I think there is >> no reason we have to make this in to a personal vendetta. >> 2. Is there different standards? No, of course not. I think, if they do >> not swiftly defend an accusation saying there measurements are faulty, then >> they have no defense Their results are faulty and their claims are >> non-existing. >> 3. Thus my conclusion is; 'DGT does not play in the LENR development'. >> Their result and methods does not warrant any comments. >> 4. Am I going to be wrong in December when they produce this rumored COP >> of >100? Not at all. Either they think they are fine being the only one on >> the planet who knows something, which nobody knows but they do not want to >> tell. Or they have found the way from having nothing today to something >> viable in December. In the first scenario I think we can agree that they >> have mislead everyone without comments (but with purpose) and thereby >> losing credibility. In the second case they are among other unknown, who >> have no comments. >> My main point is, why kill the messenger? >> >> BTW I think Rossi and the new investors are making a mistake not >> revealing their plans. I do understand strategic reasons for not giving >> away details. However, as we talk about a revolutionary product easy and >> cheap to produce, why not tell the outlines for the future. I begin to >> wonder if there is engineering problems, which prevents them from revealing >> their marketing plans. This is how conspiracy rumors are born so just await >> them rather than a frank statement saying;' This is where we are and here >> is a problem we are working on. Then we will . . . . .' >> >> Why so much secrecy? Why not frankly say how things are (not revealing >> technical details)? This mystification pared with very sophisticated >> discussions about nuclear physics and QM makes any investor leery to take >> action. >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >> lenn...@thornros.com >> +1 916 436 1899 >> 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 >> >> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM >> >> >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Its pretty clear that Jed is attempting to hold DGT to the same standard >>>> as Rossi et al. Of course, the bar set by Rossi et al in terms of >>>> disclosure is pretty low -- so I can see his frustration with DGT as >>>> reasonable. >>>> >>> >>> Rossi's has set the disclosure bar so low he would win a limbo contest. >>> Rossi has disclosed practically nothing. The quality of his tests ranged >>> from bad to ridiculous. >>> >>> I believe Rossi because other people independently tested his devices >>> and confirmed the claims. Specifically, the people at Ampenergo, U. >>> Bologna, and ELFORSK. Several other people tested his devices and found >>> they did not work. If it were not for those independent tests, I would not >>> believe one word of Rossi's claims. >>> >>> Defkalion has not published any results. Not one test. Not one graph. So >>> we have no basis to judge them. Except up until now I could sort of judge >>> by the rumors, and the stray comments by experts under NDA, who said "the >>> gadget does not work." That is not much to go on, but it looked bad. Then I >>> heard their flow rate measurement was wrong. How wrong, I did not know, but >>> even Hadjichristos confirmed it was wrong. >>> >>> Now, finally, we have a definitive result: the calorimetry is wrong. >>> >>> Unless and until they publish some other result, it is case closed. They >>> have nothing. >>> >>> Look, people make stupid mistakes. It happens. You have to forgive them. >>> What is not forgivable is when they hold out for years and they do not >>> admit they made a mistake. The paper from Gamberale shows that Defkalion >>> knew long ago they had made a mistake. (Or they knew he caught them >>> committing fraud, if that is what it was.) They should have published a >>> retraction on their web site saying: "The ICCF18 demonstration was invalid >>> because the flow rate was measured incorrectly. We apologize for the >>> mistake." If they had done that, every expert in this field would forgive >>> them, as would I. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
