DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote: I know you hate my car idea but just FYI the Iwamura video you way is > popular has been viewed around 3400 times, my You tube car video has been > viewed 3700 in just 3 weeks. So if just downloading is the measure, my > approach is "popular". My guess is that it is a different audience and not > just the same people as those going to your site. >
That is true. It is a good point. I expect this will be a different audience. Unfortunately, knowing what I do about people at corporations, universities, government agencies and so on, I expect this will be the wrong audience. People interested in experiments with cars tend to be the "free energy" types featured at http://pesn.com/ They are a world apart from corporate types. > I personally believe if you want a different outcome than the last 25 > years, a new approach and a new audience is required. > You never tried my approach. As I said, you did a demo and then never published the data. This is like calibrating a cell, carefully preparing electrolyte and cathode . . . and then quitting right there, never bothering to do any electrochemistry. > Out of curriosity, how has my ICCF 14 review of the experiments faired in > these numbers of downloads. > Ah. That is in a book, broken in two files. I cannot tell what individual papers people are reading. The first part is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf I think it is more convenient for the readers when I smoosh all the papers together like that, but it makes it impossible for me to know which paper is popular and which is not. I can only track the papers broken into individual files. Looking at individual papers, the four by Cravens that are broken out separately are popular. The ICCF4 one is broken out separately and also included in the book. I copied the book from the EPRI site. It was of poor quality. I improved it somewhat. The original paper copy quality is poor. - Jed
