My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some
experimental/theoretical research
on the subject; LENR in this case.
Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition.
No, I disagree. Has he set up a lab and done some experiments? No. Has he
delivered a theoretical
paper at a conference? No.
ALL he did was a personal peer-review. That's not 'research'. Yes, some will
use any supportive
statements to label a person as an insider... so what.
My point was that at the time of the 60-Minutes piece, he most certainly was
NOT, and that's why his
assessment, along with being done on 60-Mins to reach a much larger audience,
had the impact it did.
He came in as a skeptic, but did, in a sense, an individual peer-review; did
his own calculations to
make sure the math was correct, check for good experimental process, etc., and
came to a conclusion
based on data... what any true scientist would do. So what if he is now
considered an insider...he
had the intended affect. Now get a small group of expert OUTSIDERS to do the
same thing and issue
their conclusions... not DOE; they couldn't put together an objective panel if
their lives depended
on it.
Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the diehard
(pathological) skeptics
like Park; its to persuade the average Science or Nature reader, the average
researcher, who then
writes or calls the journal editors and expresses their concern that a major
breakthru is being held
back because of political/egotistical reasons. When they realize this could be
a clean source of
power... what scientist doesn't want to wean the world off of oil?
Duncan/60-Mins, and now this DIA
Report increases the pressure on journal editors to give LENR papers a fair
chance at peer-review...
and that's exactly what's needed at this point in time.
-Mark
_____
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Mark Iverson wrote:
Jed, then you've got some extremely liberal definition of 'insider'!
I was using the skeptics' definition. As I said, one of them called Duncan a
"charlatan" because he
concluded that Energetics Technology is correctly measuring 0.8 W in, ~20 W
out. Any sane expert in
calorimetry would reach this conclusion, but the skeptics say anyone who does
becomes an "insider"
and loses all credibility.
My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some
experimental/theoretical research on
the subject; LENR in this case.
Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition.
The people who consulted in this review are listed on p. 6. Some of them are
not known to have
contributed to cold fusion but they are knowledgeable about the field and that
makes them "insiders"
as some people define it. This devolves into a "no true Scotsman" logical
fallacy.
Agreed, some may now refer to Dr. Duncan as somewhat of an insider, but his
single assessment had
MORE of a positive impact than anything that I can think of... it drastically
reduced the "negative
aura" surrounding LENR...
I would not say "drastically." There is still a lot of resistance and no good
press in the mass
media. It has had a welcome effect, and it has opened doors. That was mainly
because it was
broadcast on CBS. Gerischer was as qualified and prestigious as Duncan, and his
review is even more
positive than Duncan's, but it had no impact because no one has ever heard of
it, apart from people
who download his paper. Which is here, by the way:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf
- Jed
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.69/2508 - Release Date: 11/17/09
07:40:00
