Thanks for that comment Thomas, but my credentials are nowhere close to Ed's - and consist of mainly having been around the scene for 19 years with a strong interest (60 hour weeks) in trying to understand what is happening on a much broader front than LENR alone.
However, having said that - If given the chance to influence funding, I would probably disappoint many of the entrenched researchers, even Ed, who want (correctly) to fully understand what is happening before moving on.. I think the 'big picture' situation is so dire that we must use a large chunk of whatever funding comes along in a calculated gamble - such that even if we do not understand the situation well enough, we do know enough to jump-start the the "applied technology" by going ahead with actual devices. There would still be basic R&D but there would also be a concurrent jump-start program. By that, I would suggest water-heaters and home heating as the initial product and solicit designs from present manufacturers of those products who were willing to work with people like Ed to try to leap over the normally accepted way these things proceed. In other words we would use the Manhattan project of a model for how to cut 20 years off the traditional process (of going from lab to factory floor in small well-understood steps) - and allow the project to use maximum over time and double shifts and expect a commercial product in six months. It will not be perfect, but from then on, we use the Model-T approach of of weekly improvements. We must be able to do this in the face of falling oil prices as well, as that is a false-enticement to go slower. OPEC already pulled that trick out of the hat in the early seventies. This proto-plan would also mean that Mills/BLP would be in a favored position in such a scenario - since at least they have demonstrated something that points in the firm direction of a water heater using alternative fuel. However, it might be necessary to compensate BLP for expected future patent royalties, with or without their approval, and commandeer the IP for use by others -- in a kind of national competition. And, to the further disappointment of Mills, I would insist that he (or one of the grantees of the hydrino technology) try to run the system on deuterium, to see how that change affects things; and also to try to integrate the hydrino into a hybrid hot reactor (fission or fusion) ! Bottom line - most researchers who want to proceed with business-as-usual, even at greatly increased funding levels, better look for someone less-radical and less-frightened about of the direction our society is headed. Jones ----- Original Message ---- From: thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Edmund Storms wrote: > OK Thomas, suppose your letter is believed and answered. Exactly how > would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this > is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. > This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus > thinks is the best approach. Would you want the loudest or the most I'd suggest a board of open minded people to spread the aforementioned money around. People with credentials. I'd like to nominate you and Jones Beene. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
