I agree with you, Jed. The most effective way to understand LENR is by
seeing the patterns it creates. You see the patterns produced by
interest in the subject. These pattens become obvious only when a
large data set is viewed. As a result, you see clearly what interests
the most people, information we have not used when we attempt to
present the subject to the world.
On the other hand, I have done the same thing with respect to the
behavior of the phenomenon itself. I have looked at all of the
observations, both those made by other people and as a result of my
work. These behaviors have patterns of behavior that reveal how the
process operates. In contrast, the other theories focus on one
behavior and apply a detailed analysis. This is like digging a very
well engineered mine shaft where one nugget was found rather than
looking for the source of the nuggets.
Ed Storms
On Mar 25, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote:
Granted it was only about a watt in Boston and ¼ W in Monte Carlo,
but still demos and papers were give at both.
Higher power would be helpful, but again, these demonstration failed
to have impact mainly because they were not documents, published or
presented. All record of them has been lost. How can you expect a
demonstration seen only by a few dozen people to have an impact?
Especially when all of those people already knew that cold fusion is
real that will hardly be noticed.
If you are not going to publish data, videos and other proof of the
demonstration on the web, you might as well not do it in the first
place.
I don’t think your assumptions about demos, papers, and
presentations are correct.
I am right, though. The audience for Rossi's papers at LENR-CANR.org
proves it. I know a great deal more about what attracts serious
attention and who is reading about cold fusion than you do, so I
think you and other researchers should do as I suggest. I probably
know more about this than anyone else in the world. I know this
because I have access to the LENR-CANR.org log files, not because I
have some special gift for reading the mind of the public. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
Let me be blunt. I am sitting here with the data from 2.8 million
visits to LENR-CANR. I have it, and you don't. That makes me the
expert. Frankly, I think it is a little presumptuous for you and
other researchers to tell me what the audience for cold fusion
papers does or does not want to read.
My hypothesis is that the higher energy levels and “sizzle” is
what is required.
That would be helpful but it it not necessary. Papers such as
McKubre's that show much lower power levels attract a great deal of
serious attention.
What we need is well-written papers describing significant excess
heat results in good experiments. That is more important than high
power. We need a comprehensive presentation on the web, not
something seen for a few days by a handful of experts. We need a
demonstration so that many experts can vouch for the results, and so
that some serious mass-media reporters will see the actual
equipment. As shown by the "60 Minutes" segment, this can have a
positive impact.
- Jed
