Ed, Sorry, but once again, you are only half-right. It is fairly clear to anyone who is paying close attention that you fear and will lobby against positive results from any kind of democratic experimental effort - since it will further marginalize your own theory if successful.
Ed's theory is not incorrect... let me be clear on that. But he has "fallen in love" with an incomplete theory, which was one of Fred Sparber's fundamental warnings: never fall in love with your own theory to the exclusion of all others. Moreover, Ed's theory applies to only one of many gainful hydrogen reactions in LENR. That is what he does not want to be revealed. Experimenters will be able to see gain in LENR with or without Ed's theory. It may not even be among the top tier theories for gain, but it is relevant to some extent, and should not be ignored. It is as simple as that. I would hate to see any kind of meaningful open-sourced effort disparaged before it gets off the ground... assuming of course - that there is a CC which works well with hydrogen in an unpowered mode... the hidden motivation for negativity is rather transparent. -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this special condition is created (I call the NAE) no treatment will cause LENR. This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry
