Consider the following analogy:
"Edison first used carbonized sewing thread as a filament, he managed to get it inside a vacuum.
This made his first practical lightbulb. He used carbonized sewing threads until 1880. Then he used paper bristol board. (Carbonized paper) This move increased lamp life to 600 hours."
http://www.edisontechcenter.org/incandescent.html
The analogy is that we are at the early development stage of LENR where the device fails more often than we would like (just as the carbonized sewing threads burned out more often than was preferred), but at the same time, we see a huge potential and are we are looking for something to parallel the tungsten filament in the incandescent light bulb.
We suspect that when the breakthrough in LENR occurs that is at a level of progress equivalent to the tungsten filament breakthrough in the incandescent light bulb, the world will change significantly.
So, my question is, "Does it help to see that LENR is like the invention of the light bulb?"
Does LENR work well enough to draw the attention of millions of dollars and high-stakes investors willing to battle over patents? Apparently at least one.
What does it mean that we now in the early stages of a fight over who owns LENR and its patents?
Will IH defend its non-payment because it has licenses to patents that precede Rossi's?
Will the trial be widely publicized and draw more investors in to the LENR field of invention?
Timing is an important consideration. Therefore I want to ask you all:
When will Silicon Valley become involved?
When will Venture Capitalists become involved?
When will a company the size of GE become involved?
When will a large University Create a LENR department?
When will MIT accept LENR as fact?
Also: Are we hoping for publicity in order to attract more investment?
d
