Axil, You obviously have the knowledge. You can see the fractional theory and perhaps what you say here about many different theories working together in a hard to explain set of structures is how it will be understood. Now it must be clear that as knowledge is an important ingredient. However, other resources need to be attended also if a result is to be expected. Just to organize the findings and the many theories so we could find out probabilities for different paths. I.E. I understand electrolysis has been declared weak or a cul-de-sac, although that is how it was initiated by F&P. There are very few people doing experiments in Vortex and I cold continue the list of things we do not handle. Just mentioned a couple (obvious) things not handled so well. I agree with your findings about certain players. I am not saying they are correct but that they all have done something to move forward. I think the reason is that they had a couple of other required ingredients, entrepreneurship, risk willingness etc. As we agree about those things I am a little puzzled over your critic of BLP. I have no affiliation with BLP. I have no means to qualify there theories. It is just that they are marching forward being the only organization able to get funding of a caliber that counts. I guess there weakness is in way they solve issues built on an academic approach. Many years ago I invested ( as a president of a investment company) in a pharmaceutical company with very impressive biographies. The problem was that they never attended general business problems the most important to them was to be funded to do further research. Good in itself but failing on the business side is just as bad as failing in research. I understand that there are personal winnings of being the one who first can identify LENR. Therefore instead of sharing information, which will be everybody's long before a clear theory is formulated a debate about who's findings are more relevant than others is the standard procedure. You say there are hundreds of processes.Why dis anyone organize them instead than someone can combine a theory down the line. When I am at it the patent discussion is pathetic. Having a patent requires to have very deep pockets in order to take advantage of it. Most often to protect their right many patent owners becomes more versed in patent law and other issues regarding the patent. Being poor and have a good patent only has one solution sell the patent before somebody can run you over - somebody will .
I wrote my critic to Axil, but that does not mean I believe I think he is responsible. I just thought that his belief / understanding about the complexity of LENR was a good base for pushing my point that engaging all resources and rather organize the different findings instead of advocate them being wrong would be accepted. Hope against hope:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +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 Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > LENR is a family of systems that exhibit a wide range of effectiveness. > Some of these systems are very week and others are strong. All these > systems employ a set of technologies which number as large as one hundred. > How these technologies are employed will dictate the power and the > weaknesses of the system and therefore the usefulness of any given LENR > system. > > The LENR system reflects the designer of that system. The designer makes > decisions about what technologies to use in his creation and how to apply > those technologies. LENR is not a science, it is a collection of systems. > LENR is not like superconductivity, but LENR may employ superconductivity > as one of its component technologies or it may not. The enemies of LENR > attack the designer of a given LENR system because that system is a > projection of the judgment and knowledge of that designer. > > There are many types of aircraft. Some are supersonic and some are > gliders. The designer has made technical decisions to meet the functions > that the system was specified to meet. > > You can’t prove an aircraft. But you can show that an aircraft works or it > doesn’t by a capabilities demonstration..Lenr is just like aircraft. Does > that machine fly or not. > > For example, the enemies of the Papp engine always attack Joe Papp as a > paranoid and wacko. They never attack the concept of cluster formation in a > noble gas. An iron clad third party test that was enough to prove the Papp > engine to the Patent office is not enough for the naysayers. The system > that Joe Papp built must be flawed and could never work because Joe Papp > was flawed. This same logic applies to Rossi and LeClair. > > The DGT system is flawed because DGT ran out of money. So that system > could not have worked because the cost controls employed by DGT were > tragically lacking. > > The naysayers want LENR to meet the open source requirements of science, > They want to replicate them. But replication cannot be done because it is a > system comprised of many sciences. And that proper combination of component > parts are proprietary in industry. In this lies the dilemma of the clash of > cultures that LENR suffers: science and engineering, A LENR designer can > prove that some components of LENR work in a scientific experiment as I > have showed on this thread, but LENR can only be proven as an singular > effective system by competing in the marketplace. > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dear Friends, >> >> I have just published: >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/11/a-new-analogy-for-lenr.html >> >> It is a product of my autumn of discontent. The winter will be probably >> much better and the spring excellent. >> >> Peter >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> > >
