To Alain, It is not shocking to me. The reason is that at my first job (in semiconductor business, we dealt with 125C, 2kV and 10kA so it was challenges.) I had a guy working for me building test equipment I designed.) I enthusiastically bought some Teflon, which I learnt about in a magazine and asked my guy to do some test jigs. His response was: "It is impossible, in the forties we tried another new material and it just caused problems and now nobody even knows about it, let us try to work it out with Bakelite instead." . After that and me forcing him to use Teflon he did everything to show me that it was impossible. One day he came into me and said we triumph in his voice. "Now I need to stop using that Teflon stuff as I have an article here saying that at 400C this material will give off flor and that is poisonous. You never know which temperature this can reach in the lace. Here, send it back." I was shocked and then I have expected that changes are impossible. The non-believers need to be convinced one by one. The good thing is that the series 2,4,8, . . works well relatively soon as non-believers becomes enthusiasts. The negative thing is when you cannot convince one person about the idea - then you will forever be criticized for that, which is a pity as if you never fail you have not tried hard enbough.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > what is shocking me, is that activist or deniers, convinced or not, most > people will again and again discuss whether the theory allow it, whether it > is possible... > > No need to ask the permission to theory for LENR to exist, since it > happens. > > > nobody challenge the evidence... > they talk of theory.... > exhausting. > > > 2014-06-11 19:39 GMT+02:00 Lennart Thornros <[email protected]>: > > Alain I think the link you provided has a lot of value. >> The reasons are many. There are many clarifications of what is the >> current status of LENR is in a nutshell. >> 1. There is no denial of that something happens when certain parameters >> are engaged some certain way, which produce more energy than what can be >> explained with current thermodynamic laws. >> 2. We do not know what is happening and where the science will need a >> modification. >> 3. We do not know if even the ecat is capable of producing a COP large >> enough that useful energy (I.E electricity) can be extracted for a long >> period of time - reliable. (Maybe changing soon - hope so.) >> 4. Scientists will discuss theoretical possibilities for a long time >> forward and an increasing number of scientists will be engaged if a viable >> commercial product is offered to the market. One day someone will provide >> an explanation and perhaps receive a Nobel prize or at least receive >> well deserved accolade. >> 5. Regardless of 4 above as soon as a commercial product is available we >> will see many competing products many with the Ecat concept and others with >> competing concepts. >> 6. It is clear to me that immediately we reach the critical point >> (commercialization), we will enter a period, which in its own way might be >> as important for the future development of LENR as is the reasons to find >> the theories behind it. The reasons for that i,s many interests are now >> going to collide. I do not think that any government conspiracy will be an >> issue for reasons I am happy to give later. However, I am sure that >> established businesses - particularly energy companies, which can see the >> of their business model - will be key players. >> >> I know that was a lot of words to reach a point obvious to most people >> here. My concern is that if we let the big and mighty and very resourceful >> energy companies take over they will work this entirely as it fits their >> agenda. Implementation will happen as is best for the change over of those >> large entities - as they are too big to fail they will allowed that by the >> government (see GM). I know that many people in Vortex wants to see greener >> earth and a better planet - soon. I think that it is most important to make >> sure there is an adequate business model to take care of the opportunity, >> which a successful LENR could provide. The problem is that the window of >> opportunity will be small. I will stop here with saying that in short that >> means to change to a more flexible format (business model) with very small >> footprint but high flexibility and speed. Henry Ford's influence gave us >> big and self sufficient companies with stability to survive without any >> concern about the outside factors. Now we cannot be away from outside >> factors even for a minute or when asleep (Cellphone) so we need a format >> that mirrors our time and the product of the future. >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >> [email protected] >> +1 916 436 1899 >> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >> >> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-hijack-split/ >>> >>> If serious people with good reference can participate >>> >> >> >
