Jones Beene wrote:
Not to wax Clinton-esque about the oneness of one, but if you want
rationalize it that way - the "one mechanism" would need to be oh-so
complex ...
...not just so complex and layered as to explain tritium, helium,
heavy isotopes which shouldn't be there (much heavier than Pd) and
light isotopes which shouldn't be there (Ca etc), but light water,
heavy water, SPAWARS subthermal neutrons - the list goes on-and-on.
Experimental results often seem impossibly complex before a unifying
theory emerges. See Mallove's description of Hahn and Strassman's
five year struggle with fission (p. 21 - 22). See also the utter
chaos in theories attempting to explain cellular reproduction before 1952.
I expect that some of the most inexplicable results will turn out to
be experimental error. This is what happened with the early fission
research data. The rest will fit into one theory. As I said, I
predict it will be found that this theory also apply to plasma
fusion, and whatever they now use to explain light elements combining
(something like brute force, I suppose?) will later be seen as
oversimplified and incorrect.
. . . the closest single factor or theory which might be capable of
mending all these broken fences into the OK corral of LENR - is: ta-da:
...oops, it is nothing less than the general concept the shrunken
ground state orbital of hydrogen/ deuterium - which concept may look
out of place, both
here and at BLP- it could be the key to the whole thing.
Well, if that's the one, then that's it. That would be fine with me.
I couldn't care less what theory emerges, or whether it is
revolutionary (like Mills) or incremental and fits in well with
existing theory (like Hagelstein).
If hydrinos turn out to be it, then I predict they also play a role
in plasma fusion.
As long as the theory works well enough to allow the development of
practical energy devices, I don't give a hoot whether it involves
shrinking hydrogen atoms or expanding cauliflowers. Frankly, I cannot
understand why anyone cares, or why physicists get all hot & bothered
about it. It is like arguing about whether Macs are better than PCs.
(Answer: It depends on what you want to do, what software is
available, how much money you have, and so on.) I also do not care
whether the theory is actually "right" in some profound sense, or
merely right enough to get the job done. Based on empirical
philosophy, I doubt anyone can tell the difference even in principle.
- Jed
