Oh, to set the record straight or to clearify my statement
about ICCF10 demos Letts and I were told not to present at the conference
center....… Mitchell Swartz and Dash did gave demos during ICCF 10-- Not at
the conference center but at the nearby lab at
MIT. Mitch also gave a presentation and
paper. However, Jed chooses not to post
his papers or works.
The point remains that papers, presentations, and demos do
not seem to have much effect on the field. I hope I did not slight Swatz or
Dash. I enjoy their work and wish them only the best.
From: djcrav...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other
theories
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:08:28 -0600
Again you make some interesting assertions that do not seem
to be valid. Recall that in ICCF 10
Letts and I gave back to back presentations and papers that included a remote
demonstration (since the conference precluded live demos) involving laser
stimulation. (see
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue52/ifcc10review.html or your
file http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDlaserstimua.pdf)
We did a remote demo that included papers involving remotely
turning on the laser in Boston and the audience could follow the XP live via
labview and PC anywhere during
the talk. Granted it was only about a
watt in Boston and ¼ W in Monte Carlo, but still demos and papers were give at
both.
I don’t think your assumptions about demos, papers, and presentations
are correct. My hypothesis is that the higher
energy levels and “sizzle” is what is required.
It is like all of Obama’s administration funding of the fraudulent “green
energy companies”. Sizzle, hype and
political favors sale even impractical systems- not papers, presentations and
demos. I also point to Rossi as how hype seems to trump reality or papers. You
may wish to re evaluate your hypothesis.
d2
