On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:12:56 -0400
Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
> write about it?
I don't know very much about this business and I can not debate it,
but I consider myself to be like a juror listening to the
testimony of experts: I may not understand all of what they say,
but I can get a pretty good idea of which one's testimony makes
the most sense.
Cude's demeanor was consistently polite; the several people he
was up against were rather less polite in many instances, and one
of them was downright churlish.
None of them seemed to me to be as convincing as Cude was.
>From reading the exchanges here and on other forums, I have the
impression (my 'verdict') that the evidence for lenr is
either:
anecdotal ('all the water boiled out of the bucket!';'there
was a terrific explosion!' - that sort of report), but that the
events can not be repeated;
or
laboratory curiosities: 3.001 watts out for 3 watts in; or larger
ratios, but can't be achieved regularly, and can not be scaled up;
in fact, according to Cude, claims have been scaled down over
the years.
Despite the cries here that nobody (I assume that means taxpayers)
will give money to allow lenr enthusiasts to do the job they could
do if they had more money, I find it hard to believe that if there
was anything to the lenr effect, that some way of exploiting it
would not have been found since P&F in 1989.
In fact, the Japanese gave P&F a lab and x million dollars and a
couple of years to repeat their original supposed lenr effect, and
they could not do it.
