Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce experimental results without theoretical understanding. I'm not sure that thesis is correct.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this is > a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in the > field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People simply go > their own way regardless of the obvious problems and conflicts with > reality. > > Many people, including myself, have made the effect work and reported the > results. In addition, several of us have published attempts at an > explanation. So Swartz is not unique. The question is, "Is his > understanding correct?" As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, > how do you decide? > > Ed Storms > > On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > > Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should > definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and > frankly, way beyond my understanding. > > > But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting > massive investment and recognition from labs everywhere. Once billion > dollar labs take it seriously, that's when you will see the technology > advance very dramatically. > > I believe Swartz is trying to do exactly that with Nanor, and he's doing > it in an open, transparent way. This is exactly the mature, scientific, > selfless approach I've been waiting for. > > In my opinion, it could turn out to be the great reflection point in LENR. > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is >> real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a >> person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is >> worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information about how >> LENR works. So far, this approach is not bring used effectively. All >> present explanations can be shown not to explain the process. A person can >> disagree about what kind of explanation might be correct, but the present >> explanations are clearly wrong. Until this situation changes, I believe >> investment in a device will produce very little of value. >> >> We are like a person in 1800 being shown a smart phone and being asked to >> make another one. You can imagine all the explanations of how it worked >> that would be discussed, with none of them being even close to the correct >> one. That is the situation now in LENR. People have no idea how it works, >> yet they are certain they have a correct understanding. This is like trying >> to design heavier than air flight before the Wright Brothers or a durable >> light bulb before Edison. Why not invest in getting knowledge? >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> >> On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: >> >> If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of Jet >> Energy and test that. >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> If someone asked me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I >>> would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance >>> of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. >>> ***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in >>> correspondence with the X-Prize committee, proposing a LENR replication >>> prize for Techshop and following the MFMP recipe. I think that with a >>> techshop, $100k, and some guidance, someone with as pedestrian an intellect >>> such as mine could replicate those Gamma rays. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold >>>>>> fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he >>>>> be crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I would find out. People such as Ed Storms and McKubre would find out. >>>> It is a small world. People are not going to do research without word >>>> getting out. I may not know where the money is coming from, but if someone >>>> starts spending millions per year on cold fusion, they will have to hire >>>> grad students and consult with people, and word will get out. >>>> >>>> If you are a billionaire but you are only going to spend tens of >>>> thousands instead of millions, I might not hear about it. An investor who >>>> does not spend millions is wasting his money. If we could get somewhere >>>> with shoestring budgets, we would have made progress years ago. If someone >>>> asked me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I would say go to >>>> the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a >>>> profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
