It is my strong belief that way down deep near the heart of LENR causality that all manifestations of LENR have the same ultimate origin.
Just like and electric current and be produced in many ways, batteries, generator, rubbing a rabbit skin on a glass rod, so too it is with LENR. Some forms of electric current production are more efficient and practical than others, so to it is with LENR. LENR+ is just a more efficient and productive way of stimulating the most fundamental LENR production mechanism. LENR can do it, but LENR+ and do it far better. If you wanted to power your house, you would install a generator. You would not install a battery or rub a piece of glass with an animal skin. Let us move on from the inefficient modes of producing the LENR reaction, to the more efficient ones: LENR+. On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Jed, > > Some comments to your comments, if you allow it to me. > > First it is not about a fight between DGT and Mary Yugo, on the > contrary it is kind of collaboration, a bit special I reckon but > definitely a cooperation. A sine qua non pre-condition for this > is Mary becoming a real person with credentials and also > with criminal record- she knows lot of fraud- possibly from > investigating them but possibly from comitting them- > you never know- I am old and have seen all kind of people. > You cannot work with ghosts, zombies or people with no identity > and no responsibility- if the tests comes out differently than she > wishes, she can declare: "they have NOT convinced me" and bye! > > > The obsesssion with an independent test became a strong meme > in our field; you have seen in this stage that a manual test needs > experience and skills, an automatic test is dependent on the > program. This independent issue has to be discussed in detail > and principle. However surely you will see independent test. > > I consider that to be undecided is a bsic human right and > nobody should force you to a Y/N decision regarding Rossi > or Defkalion- as long a you represent yourself- an important > person in the long Cold Fusion history and not some institution > or organization. > > I am preparing an essay about what to do in LENR field to make the things > much easier; a very important idea is to make a clear and sharp distinction > between LENR classic and LENR+. Different mechanism are at work, > soimplistically the firts is static and the second is dynamic. And the > second is with 3 orders of magnitude more intense than the second. > The same laws apply to both but diffeently. > It is not effective to mix LENR and LENR+. > > Peter > > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I responded to some of the comments at Mats Lewan's blog: >> >> >> https://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/comments-on-defkalion-reactor-demo-in-milan/#comment-1097 >> >> I have to walk a fine line. I do not want to get dragged into a fight >> between Defkalion and Mary Yugo. I also do not want anyone to think I >> endorse Defkalion's claims. They have to publish an independent replication >> to establish credibility. I cannot judge whether their claims are true, >> false, or mistaken. It is even remotely possible they are fraudulent, >> although I doubt that. >> >> The video was a helpful guide to their claims. It puts us in a better >> position to judge an independent evaluation. But until we see that >> evaluation we must reserve judgement. No one gets a free pass. Nullius in >> verba. If Defkalion wants people to believe them, they will publish one of >> their reports now held under NDA. >> >> I think it is irresponsible to accuse them of fraud, but it would also be >> irresponsible to endorse their claims. I wrote in the blog: "In view of the >> recent tests by Levi et al., and some unpublished previous tests, I think >> it is extremely unlikely that Rossi is engaged in fraud. I regard the Levi >> report as independent verification. I have not seen a similar independent >> verification of Defkalion’s claims so I cannot judge their credibility. >> Obviously I cannot endorse their claims either." >> >> On the other hand, there is no harm in speculating about the theoretical >> or engineering aspects of Defkalion's claims, on the assumption that the >> claims are true. When an interesting new experiment is published we glom >> onto it. We try to figure out how it fits into the big picture of cold >> fusion. We do this even though we know that many results turn out to be >> mistaken. I am still not sure about Celani's wire claims, especially after >> the MFMP and others made heroic attempts to replicate with no clear >> results. If that turns out to be a mistake, oy veh! Too bad! That will mean >> we have wasted our time speculating about the theoretical or practical uses >> of wire, and the MFMP has wasted months of effort and a ton of money. >> Them's the breaks. If you don't like that, do not get involved in >> cutting-edge scientific research. >> >> We would have to forgive Celani if it turns out to be a mistake. Fraud >> would infuriating and unforgivable. But they are functionally similar in >> many ways. I do not think many people outside of Defkalion have invested >> much effort or time evaluating their results, or speculating about the >> theoretical implications. Until the demo we have not had much to speculate >> about. People have spent a lot of effort looking at Rossi's results. This >> has been fruitful. >> >> - Jed >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
