Blaze, why do you keep jumping to conclusions having no relationship
to what I say?
I did not say Swartz does not know how to measure energy. I have no
doubt he can make the effect work. I question whether he understands
HOW it works, not THAT it works. Do you understand the difference?
On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
So your premise then that not only is his theoretical understanding
wrong, but he doesn't know how to measure energy / heat as well?
From what I can see:
an MIT professor is vouching for Swartz by association
This is not a reason to believe Swartz knows how LENR works. Peter's
theory has some serious flaws that he has yet to address.
Swartz has optimized his nanor device to produce consistent, high
lenr+ cop
That is news to me. What is the COP and what conditions is the value
based on?
Swartz is going to make these (simple) devices widely available for
anyone to reverse engineer & replicate his results
I would like to get one. Can you arrange this?
If he's incompetent to the point he can't even correctly measure
such massive COP, then yes, you're right. Is that what you're saying?
Again, you make an assumption that is not correct.
Otherwise, when labs such as MFMP get this and reproduce what he
has, I think we will see something hugely dramatic in terms of
global interest
Yes, a lot of global interest has been generated, especially by Rossi.
This does not generate understanding unless money is used to get this
understanding. Basic scientific study is very different from
improving the engineering design of a device.
Who else is trying to do that? Who else has that level of
credibility? Are you trying to produce something that can be widely
replicated?
Claytor has made tritium for years, showing that LENR is occurring
without question. No one paid any attention. Energetics has a method
that is reproducible. Of course, Rossi has the gold star. This does
not provide any information about how the effect works.
If you are doing this, I will happily donate to MFMP to buy your
device assuming it's optimized for wide replication in the way that
Nanor is.
I'm not trying to optimize a device. I'm trying to understand how the
effect works under any and all conditions.
Not only am I optimistic about Nanor, I believe this model of
scientific sharing (producing a device like Nanor) is precisely what
LENR+ needs.
Yes, a working device is needed to support studies of its behavior.
However, such studies require money, much more than the cost of the
device. Such studies also require skill and knowledge. Where do you
plan to get money and the people to make such studies? MEMF is only a
testing laboratory. They are not equipped to do basic studies.
I can see that this basic idea is hard for you to understand, Blaze.
Until people with money understand this basic requirement, I expect
LENR will make very little progress and will suffer setbacks when the
generators fail.
Ed Storms
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce
experimental results without theoretical understanding. I'm not
sure that thesis is correct.
]
No that is NOT what I said. I said that successful application
reqires knowledge about the basic process. This is required to
amplify the process and control power production, as well as to
satisfy the regulars. Hundreds of experimental results have been
produced without this knowledge, largely by chance. That is why the
effect is so hard to replicate.
Ed Storms
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]
> 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 <[email protected]
> 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 <[email protected]
> 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
<[email protected]> wrote:
James Bowery <[email protected]> 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
