Clearance Items
-
-
Personally, I don't do fraud.
That is certainly the feeling I get from you.
As a matter of logic, my analysis is correct.
-
Bruce,
IMO, were this only Alan/Martin's experiment, it would be handled more along the lines of an open science project. As you noted though, we have to take our cues in other ways than just straight data, or a live video feed, in order to judge their progress. Not optimal, but better than nothing.
From what I know, they are still very excited, and keep asking each other "WTF"...as in this can't be for real. You can see that in Russ's latest AE article, and Alan's Ode. They are not going it alone, as they have much input from their circle of "trusted" friends. The visitors keep coming (one of our own members will be there soon), with an important group paying a visit in October.
I think both would be more forthright to us, were it not for worry of the information being inappropriately used by competitors they feel do not share their goals. I think that worry is reflected in Russ's reference to that email floating around.
-
We have actually been very forthcoming with information, at least as forthcoming as if not more than many others working in the field. But for some people we could never reveal enough. We have not however succumbed to requests which are in the main driven by mere curiosity to 'tell us everything you know' and will never do so. What is the point of that? The fuel prep is certainly non-obvious, the materials sometimes variable, the mixture complex. The basic fuel itself is the result of 30 years of working in the field by Russ, and the data retrieval and reactor systems entirely built and calibrated by Martin and myself are also based on many decades of engineering and research experience. Together that makes the whole set-up unique, and the way we share data, cross check each others work and collaborate on systems makes mistakes or magic tricks very unlikely. Especially when reactors start kicking off in the small hours of the morning when the lab is long empty and the experiments should be sleeping.
On the topic of 'replication right now', simply handing a recipe out or even a fuel tube and saying 'try this' is may end up with people saying 'this doesn't work', and if they do get it to work it would be dismissed as 'just some other idiot's opinion. As for fraud, in the sense of 'wishing to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception' I turned down $50M recently, and the investors came back and said' ok, how about $75M? ' I still said 'No' . not because we are holding out for more, but because we want/need to do more work on this ourselves. Principles come before cash, play by the rules and only play with those who abide by them is the way I have always worked, and I'm too old to change my ways now.
-
We have actually been very forthcoming with information, at least as forthcoming as if not more than many others working in the field. But for some people we could never reveal enough. We have not however succumbed to requests which are in the main driven by mere curiosity to 'tell us everything you know' and will never do so. What is the point of that?
It is true that you have been pretty forthcoming about your group's work ... in some cases even as you see the results for yourselves for the first time. There is a phenomenon, however, where complete transparency and complete secrecy are the easiest to deliver but trying to occupy a sort of in-between state that requires continual decisions about what to release and what not to release is more difficult to sustain. The in-between policy must be a huge absorber of time.
I object a little, however, to the phrase "mere curiosity". I don't see what is wrong with curiosity and you have to expect it when the subject of that curiosity could be the biggest discovery in half a century. Nor do I understand your mystification about the point of telling people everything you know (something I have never asked). I think that the tell-everything-you-know strategy has advantages for both you and your audience that are pretty self evident. I understand that it is a strategy that you have not pursued, but I don't think it is silly or pointless.
On the topic of 'replication right now', simply handing a recipe out or even a fuel tube and saying 'try this' is may end up with people saying 'this doesn't work', and if they do get it to work it would be dismissed as 'just some other idiot's opinion.
Replication right now. Replication in 10 years. At some point you would have to hand a recipe or a fuel tube to someone wouldn't you? And you could face the same reactions in either case. I don't see your arguments here as addressing the time issue.
-
Replication right now. Replication in 10 years. At some point you would have to hand a recipe or a fuel tube to someone wouldn't you? And you could face the same reactions in either case. I don't see your arguments here as addressing the time issue.
Bruce__H : For the first time in history we see a chance to underline new LENR (basic physics) theory with experiments. Something we had to wait for 30 years. Is it to much to ask you to be patient until we can definitively say what is real and what is just lucky coincidence?
On the other side: Did you ever ask FORD motors for a receipt to build a car?
-
I think that the tell-everything-you-know strategy has advantages for both you and your audience that are pretty self evident. I understand that it is a strategy that you have not pursued, but I don't think it is silly or pointless.
"Tell everything" is the traditional, conventional, academic science strategy. Being the first to publish is the only way to win in that system. "Priority" is the only reward. It is the only way to get a Nobel. No one gets a Nobel for being number two, or being the first to replicate. Since you cannot patent a force of nature, there are no direct ways to cash in on a fundamental discovery.
So, this is a legitimate strategy. Perhaps the discovery Smith and George are working on can be patented, in which case there are other strategies, and keeping it secret or semi-secret makes sense. I wouldn't know if it can be patented or not. I don't know enough about the discovery or about patents to judge.
-
For the first time in history we see a chance to underline new LENR (basic physics) theory with experiments. Something we had to wait for 30 years. Is it to much to ask you to be patient until we can definitively say what is real and what is just lucky coincidence?
You are confused about my position. I have not asked Alan to reveal everything. If he and his group want to wait to define what is real and what is coincidence that is fine with me. And I don't get it ... are you one of the experimenters? You talk as though you are.
Also ... what new LENR theory? There is no new LENR theory here as far as I can see,
On the other side: Did you ever ask FORD motors for a receipt to build a car?
Huh?
-
Cheap as it would be to build a test casing with coffee straw,hot glue,plastic cups,fireclay, hematite dust, and mortar, and of course a surgeon,s knife and cap~
Thanks D
I wish I could take credit for it but its just a page from the instruction manual.
-
I object a little, however, to the phrase "mere curiosity". I don't see what is wrong with curiosity and you have to expect it when the subject of that curiosity could be the biggest discovery in half a century. Nor do I understand your mystification about the point of telling people everything you know (something I have never asked). I think that the tell-everything-you-know strategy has advantages for both you and your audience that are pretty self evident. I understand that it is a strategy that you have not pursued, but I don't think it is silly or pointless.
I don't see anything wrong with curiosity either, after all curiosity is what drives science onwards. However, there is a difference between asking because you have a need and a use for the knowledge, and asking just because you would like to know and have no other motivation or use for the information. I was talking about the latter kind of question, like asking your window-cleaner if he has been circumcised. And please don''t for a moment think that the post that spurred your response (quoted above) was directed at you personally, since it was of a general nature on the topic of openness in business. Our 'in between' disclosure policy btw takes up more time than posting nothing would, but probably much less than you imagine.
-
We have actually been very forthcoming with information, at least as forthcoming as if not more than many others working in the field. But for some people we could never reveal enough. We have not however succumbed to requests which are in the main driven by mere curiosity to 'tell us everything you know' and will never do so. What is the point of that? The fuel prep is certainly non-obvious, the materials sometimes variable, the mixture complex. The basic fuel itself is the result of 30 years of working in the field by Russ, and the data retrieval and reactor systems entirely built and calibrated by Martin and myself are also based on many decades of engineering and research experience. Together that makes the whole set-up unique, and the way we share data, cross check each others work and collaborate on systems makes mistakes or magic tricks very unlikely. Especially when reactors start kicking off in the small hours of the morning when the lab is long empty and the experiments should be sleeping.
On the topic of 'replication right now', simply handing a recipe out or even a fuel tube and saying 'try this' is may end up with people saying 'this doesn't work', and if they do get it to work it would be dismissed as 'just some other idiot's opinion. As for fraud, in the sense of 'wishing to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception' I turned down $50M recently, and the investors came back and said' ok, how about $75M? ' I still said 'No' . not because we are holding out for more, but because we want/need to do more work on this ourselves. Principles come before cash, play by the rules and only play with those who abide by them is the way I have always worked, and I'm too old to change my ways now.
I may be deluding myself, but I think the only barrier to producing robust excess heat is a good understanding of LENR (plus the spheromak/EVO nexus) and the willingness to perform testing in a continual manner -- which almost no one has the resources, time, or willingness to do. I give you and Russ credit for continually experimenting and performing tests. You contribute far more than any of us who only banter about on forums.
-
One thing for certain, all the work is not done until you bleed on your project~ if you didn't you did something wrong.
-
And I don't get it ... are you one of the experimenters? You talk as though you are.
No! I'm doing the theory and some analysis.
-
I don't see anything wrong with curiosity either, after all curiosity is what drives science onwards. However, there is a difference between asking because you have a need and a use for the knowledge, and asking just because you would like to know and have no other motivation or use for the information.
I'll push back on this too. Although I accept the distinction you have created here, I think that asking questions "... just because you would like to know and have no other motivation or use for the information" is just fine. This sort of curiosity also drives science. In fact I think it is sort of the ur-state for all scientists.
I struggle to locate any window-washer-type questions on this thread. Maybe you were thinking of questions coming to you from elsewhere or were making an extremely general point just in case it is needed some day?
-
mI'll push back on this too. Although I accept the distinction you have created here, I think that asking questions "... just because you would like to know and have no other motivation or use for the information" is just fine. This sort of curiosity also drives science. In fact I think it is sort of the ur-state for all scientists.
Many of those who ask are not scientists though, and may struggle to understand the answers. Fine of itself, I am no patissier (for example) but I am no longer in the lecturing business and certainly don't have time for demands for lengthy and often repeated explanations.
As for 'general point' I thought I made it clear that my answer was not directed specifically at you.
-
What a strange reaction but another area to see lenr
-
Are you surprised?
-
...
..
.
do we have reliable pix of the building, the staircase, the lab and the microscope ? I would like to see them...
-
It's is OK to debunk Rossi, who simply has no clue about the physics, that is underplayed to his experiments.
But unluckily for you, soon people will call today standard model physics being pseudo science. Hot fusion, the offspring of a military lie, will be named the most unsuccessful project ever, burning megatons of money, we would need to educate, e.g. 90% of the undereducated US population.
The sect of standard model physicists is worse than the catholic church, but the successful explanation of LENR physics will "push them over the cliff".
...
..
..
So, the delusion continues...
-
