Hello Peter, I think your analysis are absolute spot on. Although as I want things to be positive rather than negative I was searching for a way to express myself in a way that the same meaning appeared. Well, I did not succeed very well. However, in that search it struck me that there is one factor that can eradicate all the negative things your three rules reveal as mortal. It requires someone a little bit crazy, with a passion and an interest in reaching the solution. Why do I say crazy, because that is how you circumvent rule 1. You just don't give a rip about what others think or what is ,'ettikette' or how the establish think thing should happen..Obvious total immersion, focus comes from passion so that breaks rule 2. Because this person is somewhat crazy he will not pay any attention to how it must be. He just test and eliminate ways to reach the solution.
We all know that my statement is true in regards to all the stories about great inventors. Is it true about LENR. I think it is. I have never met the drivers of the two companies driving what I understand currently being the best possibilities for a commercial product. Andrea Rossi and Dr. Randy Mills are the names mentioned in that position. I have no clue about which theory is better. I do know that AR has much less need to show exactly why and how but that it provides result, while the opposite is true about the Dr. Mills. No, I did not say that AR is crazy, but he has had a colorful life and showed that authorities being, government or competition does not stand in his way. Personally I like that form of 'craziness' and believe that gives the ecat a better position to reach the commercialization (=the GOAL) first. On the other side I have to say that the Dr. has shown a great deal of ingenuity over long time to have people sponsor his theories. In today's very bureaucratic investment climate, which requires that you act and perform following the rules.. (Everything is built on computer models and real knowledge or gut feelings plays very little role in the decision.) That would of course make your rule 1 obsolete and say the opposite - "that you need to follow all rules better than others and you will get so much money that you can afford to do so many experiment that you finally will just find the proverbial needle in the haystack. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I have just published: > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/lenr-wants-to-grow-up.html > > a new paper in the series-"why technology first?" > > it is about prediction and history but it will not make history; if you > read it, you will easily realize why- it tries to break 3 potent, cruel > laws. > > Technologically yours, > Peter > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
