The enemy of LENR is scientific focus. Development of LENR requires good knowledge levels in a dozen fields of science and engineering to support any progress in the subject.
For example, it is unrealistic to ask a chemist to design a car. The chemist has a focused view of his particular subject constrained by his education, his goals, his interests, and the requirements of his employment. He knows nothing of aerodynamics, engine development, interior design, transmission shift points, and so on. Designing a car requires a culture of allied technologies. Those interested in progression and advancement of LENR should understand that a culture of allied LENR technologies must be envisioned, understood, defined, and organized. The motivation to do this will come when people skilled in this type of industrial organization recognize that LENR is possible, useful, and profitable. the Rossi-types do not need to reveal their secret. They simply have to show that LENR is possible, useful, and profitable. When LENR achieves this take off point, the current world culture of industrial technology competition will do the rest. I am not concerned about the future prospects of LENR because the directions that LENR is currently taking are directed toward this LENR take off point. On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > >
