Jed wrote: ... I do not see many prospects for a theory.
Steven Krivit wrote on 7-22-09: Sorry Jed, but you asked for this - Of course you don't see many prospects for theory. Your words: "I don't care about theory." Steven Krivit wrote previously: Considering that the mystery to 100% PxH is unsolved, what sense does it make to wear blinders with any of the related aspects of LENR research, be they transmutation, tritium, neutrons or theory? Jed wrote: No one is wearing blinders ... I have not examined the other claims because frankly, I only care about heat. If they have not nailed down heat who cares what else they have? I don't give a fig about tritium or neutrons or shrinking Mills hydrinos for that matter, and especially I don't care about theory. Steven Krivit wrote: You meant something else? Jed wrote on 7-22-09: ``I meant exactly what I said, as always. I, Jed, have no use for theory. Why would I do with it? I do not understand it and I cannot distinguish a good theory from a bad one. It may come to pass that the definitive theory comes to me first. In that event I shall spend several hours correcting spelling, tense, person and number, and probably the formatting of equation numbers and footnotes (which most authors get wrong), without having the foggiest notion that I am dealing with the be-all, end-all answer to cold fusion. I am not the only one. A distinguished experimentalist recently said that a theory paper "it might as well be in Chinese for all I can make of it." That's another problem: even if a good theory emerges, many experimentalists will not pay attention because they do not understand modern theories. They skip the ICCF theory sessions. There is a gap between the two groups. But anyway, just because I have no use for theory, that does not mean other people have no use for theory. I doubt many people have a use for a 11-year-old guide to Borland Delphi Pascal Ver. 4.0, but I need it! ... When researchers botch one measurement or use what I consider the wrong technique, or an overly complex and unreliable technique, I tend to doubt they got the other parts right. For example Gene Mallove told me that Bush & Eagleton were trying to use a standard calorimeter (MY calorimeter!) at a temperature close to 0C by immersing it in ice slush. He described this a nightmare of condensation, paper towels, and phase changes from which no good data could emerge. After that, they failed to deliver said calorimeter for our use. The experience left me with grave doubts about their competence and their previous results. I do not trust the technical judgement of people who do this sort of thing. On the other hand everyone makes mistakes. Skilled people sometimes do sloppy work, so you have to cut people some slack.'' Hi All, 7-23-09 Jed is right: all that counts are the experimental results. On the other hand, I'm fascinated by theories and collect them like some people collect butterflies. The big problem with theories is that they are exclusionary and limit experimentation by "believers", who also want to limit everyone else. Democritus had it right: ``All that exists are atoms [things which cannot be cut] and the void. All else is speculation [and design equations]." Incidentally, those with the best design equations (recipes, models, procedures, etc.) and political connections win. Jack Smith
