Dear Ed, Thank you very much for this bright answer. It seems to me that in the implicit mode you agree with the idea that CF has arrived before its time- and this is the reason of its slow and hesitant development. For example re understanding of LENR you had sufficient data to work out your theory only recently. The reactions take place in nanocavities. but what actually the reactions are- you know, I don't know and am waiting for experimental results coming from DGT.
I dare to think the taxonomy of LENR groups can be considered more diverse and complex than those described by you, but perhaps we cn discuss this peacefully later e.g. for an joint editorial on my blog, if you will agree. Re:* "**I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-types reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied by people who are not committed to the present ideas." *I think this secret is not so difficult and is not unique so open minded researchers will get the solution- what is the essential difference between LENR (passive, powerless, problematic) and LENR+ (active, autonomous, application-ready). I think the clue is an accelerated mode of NAE-genesis. Peter On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Peter, I'm glad you are trying to look at the LENR phenomenon from a broad > perspective. Let me add a few of my insights about where I think the field > stands right now without naming names. > > More than enough information has been accumulated to provide the basis for > the correct explanation and to show how the effect can be replicated > without fail. Nevertheless, we are still struggling to accept a useful > explanation and to make the effect work without fail because this > information is not being used. If I apply the analogy of a jig saw puzzle, > people are trying to assemble the picture while ignoring a large number of > the pieces. The people who are attempting to create an explanation > assemble a little part of the puzzle and then insist that the whole picture > is like their little piece, with the interpretation of what the little > piece shows being totally in the imagination. Each person has been looking > at their little piece so long, they no longer have the ability to consider > any other interpretation. Normally, new people come into a field of study > and bring with them new insights. This process does not occur in this field > because most people who could provide such a contribution are not > interested. Furthermore, no contribution even from these outsiders would be > useful unless the huge collection of observed behavior has been mastered, > which requires considerable effect. As a result, most new ideas being > debated have very little relationship to what is real. This ignorance > encourages repetition of failed methods and discussions that lead nowhere. > > And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the > effect work but will not tell how because they want to make money from > their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have no idea how to > explain their success and very little ability to find out. Of course, they > do not agree, instead believing that a little more time and money will > reveal the secret. Consequently, they are hoping they can figure out the > secret before someone else does and makes the effect work much better and > with total control. As long as most people continue to think the effect is > not real and that the explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a > chance because the competition will remain weak. > > So, from my viewpoint, we have three types of attitudes operating in the > LENR field. First we have most people in science who have no interest and > think the claims are nonsense. In the second group, we have a few people > who have made the effect work, but not well enough to attract interest from > Group #1. The third group consists of people who have explored various > aspect of the effect with mixed success for the last 24 years. These people > think they are the field. They speak for the field, judge what is real or > not, and look to Fleischmann and Pons as their heros. I have to admit being > in this group, while aspiring to move into group #2. > > Nevertheless, I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-types > reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied by people > who are not committed to the present ideas. This new blood must come from > outside Group #3 because this group will not accept new ideas from within, > as always happens when a field of study remains isolated too long. > Consequently, I'm rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can make the > effect work well enough for them to feel free to reveal their secret > recipe. At that point, a swarm of graduate students, will descend on the > field and start to make fast process in finding the correct explanation and > the ideal application. Until then, we in Group #3 are just exploring a fun > hobby with the blind leading the blind to a large extent. > > Ed Storms > > > > On Apr 28, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > > Dear friends, > > This writing is in part about the echo of my appeal to Rossi's Professors > (who by the way do not belong to Rossi at all!) and in part is about other > failures in search of owners: > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/04/the-lenr-ists-sunday.html > > En ensemble, it is about serious problems and things. > > Peter > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
