*The problem is that we can not agree on what is important or how to solve the basic problem. The basic problem is the impossibility to cause the effect at will by anyone who tries. Yes, individuals have had success, including myself. This success is short lived and rarely replicated by another person. We had hoped this problem would be solved by Celani. His wire, if it were active, could be supplied to anyone who wanted to explore the effect. At this time, the wire does not appear to produce the claimed power. Why is this the case? A theory would answer this question. Without an answer, no one would want to risk money chasing a ghost*.
The variability of results could be a consequence of the inexact nature of the manufacturing process. This process is inherently random. Better results may be produced if the techniques of quantum dot production where applied to the production of nano-arrays inspired by the various theories that are circulating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot#Production On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > I agree, no theory will cause a Western government to provide funds for > LENR research for the reasons John states in the article. However, a useful > theory would allow the active conditions to be described and created. This > ability would allow the effect to be replicated at will. This ability would > attract funding. In other words, the CONSEQUENCE of the theory is what is > important. > > The problem we all face is that the critical issue is not being > identified. Absence of a useful theory by itself is not the problem. The > problem is that we can not agree on what is important or how to solve the > basic problem. The basic problem is the impossibility to cause the effect > at will by anyone who tries. Yes, individuals have had success, including > myself. This success is short lived and rarely replicated by another > person. We had hoped this problem would be solved by Celani. His wire, if > it were active, could be supplied to anyone who wanted to explore the > effect. At this time, the wire does not appear to produce the claimed > power. Why is this the case? A theory would answer this question. Without > an answer, no one would want to risk money chasing a ghost. > > No, I'm not part of the effort described by John. > > Ed > > On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: > > Hello group, >> >> Defkalion GT chief technical officer John Hadjichristos occasionally >> writes comments and answers questions on Peter Gluck's blog EGO OUT [1]. I >> think this one posted today might be worth of some attention: >> >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com/2013/02/strategic-** >> principles-of-lenr-and-their.**html?showComment=**1361136108932#** >> c5631682400193533930<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013/02/strategic-principles-of-lenr-and-their.html?showComment=1361136108932#c5631682400193533930> >> >> This paragraph in particular: >> >> [...] We have allocated already funds for common R&D and theoretical >>> interpretation to specific distinguished members or teams of the existing >>> "LENR" research community, providing them full access to our experimental >>> data and resources. Hopefully the expected results of such "focusing to >>> objectives" activities will start showing up in papers within 2013. >>> >> >> Even though experimental data and resources is most probably under >> various NDAs, I wonder if those selected members and teams from the >> "existing LENR research community" are are among known posters from Vortex >> or CMNS (a private mailing list to which I have no access) and if their >> involvement with DGT (that is, their exact names) is under NDAs as well. >> >> Some disclosure here would boost DGT's public image a bit. >> >> Cheers, >> S.A. >> >> [1] http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com/<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/> >> >> >
