Dear Mr. Jonesy, First, let me inform you of sad reality of life: Just because something doesn't make sense to *you* yet, does not mean it doesn't make sense altogether. More than likely, it simply means that it doesn't make sense to *you*. And when one hits a brick wall in terms of their understanding, there are two approaches that can be taken:
A) The Holy Roman approach: Lynch anyone who disagrees with your limited understanding. On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: mix...@bigpond.com > > > However I fail to see why Frank chose to equate his constant with the > speed of sound in the nucleus. > > OK, let me try to explain it historically. > > I think I have found the answer (smoking gun) in the Archives. There is an > old exchange with Keith about the capacitance of the proton - where FZ is > cornered on the fact that the value he is using for the proton radius is > too > high, by a large margin. This was from 2006 - follow the whole thread. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg16464.html > > At that time, he was merely floating his ideas to a smaller audience > (Vortex), who were already known, far and wide, to be open-minded because > we > entertained the notion that LENR was real. > > Perfect target audience for a fringe theory - right. And he was said to be > a > good hands-on experimenter who was close to finding "something" valid in > the > lab. > > OTOH he was trying to make what he perceived to be a useful constant work > out mathematically, and if he could, then it would look to unsuspecting > viewers like he could use this "discovery" (the bogus megahertz-meter > value) > to derive Planck via another path, and for many other marvelous uses. It > was > a house-of-cards. > > Catch-22. It don't work ! And on close inspection, megahertz-meter is NOT > even a particularly good fit to the underlying data, like he claimed. > Notice > it fails by three orders of magnitude with the Arata experiment. > > This problem on the theoretical end is basically due to the expected size > of > the proton radius, and the small amount of uncertainty at that time that it > could be different (few percent either way). Never mind that he was nowhere > close, the immediate problem for the great theorist becomes: "how do I get > around this slight problem and make the radius appear much larger, since > there is some uncertainty anyway." > > He should have moved-on to something else - or at least come up with the > perfect experiment to validate the underlying value (.03 C). We can only > hope that he tried and got close. > > Instead of abandoning a sinking ship - he digs deeper into finding the > quick > fix. At that time he was trying to plug-in what he was calling a "maximum" > radius, which is the first fiction ... and to bolster that - this is > (apparently) where the whole thing about nuclear "sound" comes in... and > then compression waves, etc and/or strings. It all required moving to a > high > Z nucleus, where the proton could appear to be larger - but which is > exactly > what you do NOT want to do, for a general quantum theory that helps in > furthering LENR. > > What a disgrace ! You have a known value that doesn't work with your pet > hypothesis, so you go out there and invent a way to make the proton radius > seem to be two thirds larger than it is. > > I hope that his video guy - Lane - is not complicit in this. He actually > seems more tuned-in to reality than his mentor. On most occasions at least. > > Very sad waste of intellectual talent to see science degenerate into > becoming a tool of well-educated, but possibly not well-meaning, > mental-hijackers. The best way for Frank can redeem himself now is to stay > off YouTube and return to the Lab and find the rock-solid experiment that > blows his critics (me) out of the water. > > You have the skills to do that Frank, and you are smarter than I am and > most > of us here are, but you are not smarter than all of us. > > Do NOT be seduced by a bunch of good-looking videos into thinking you have > found it. You have been caught on this one. Go out and make a real > discovery. > > Jones > > >
