Vorl, it is impossible to decide if CF is real based on the kind of
reasoning you give below or by listening to a discussion between Cude
and anyone else. The level of the discussion is so superficial to be
useless. I wrote an entire book in order to place the evidence in one
place and to show how it relates to the claims. I have over 2000
papers in my collection that relate directly to the subject. If you do
not know enough science to read and understand this collection, than
you have to accept somebody's word about what it says. You are then in
the position of believing either Cude or me or Jed, based on which of
us sounds more plausible. Cude will win that argument because he says
what you already believe and he says it very well.
If I had the time, I could refute everything Cude says using cited
work. But if you do not have the ability to read and understand this
work, such an effort would be useless. Cude will simply say the work
describes error and I will say it does not. How will you judge which
of us to believe? Until you can buy a CF device from Wall Mart, I
suspect you will not know what to believe. I would rather spend my
time trying to make CF work better, and perhaps get a product to Wall
Mart sooner, than spend my time in this kind of discussion. I hope you
can understand my problem.
Ed Storms
On May 12, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Vorl Bek wrote:
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.
