pagnucco, some philosophical musings: The blind man-metaphor seems about right.
LENR raised a lot of questions for me. Even the blasphemical question of the identity of atoms, which is a hypothesis, based on statistical measures. No individual atom has ever been weighed precisely. It is a statistical average. Nothing more. The precision of physical constants invariably stems from ensemble -means PLUS a mathematical construct of interrelationships, which maybe precise to the n-th degree, but only as a statistical mean. Engineers naturally talk about FITs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate ), which seems to be completely alien to physicists, who are mired in mathematical rigidity. Maybe they need a bit of help? Mathematically inclined physicists ofcourse deny that idea of variability in their fundamentals outright and violently. The law of identity binds them together with the mathematicians. Common engineering experience says, that identity is only an approximation. Only Whitehead, the eminent logician, dared to challenge that from the other side. Like the LENR crowd he has been silenced, never refuted. As an engineer I am more tolerant. Maybe matter is more dirt-like, and not a mathematically precise entity. Heisenberg maybe was somehow in the middle. The concept of Heisenberg uncertainty later on was transformed into Quantum-voodoo, which is not really convincing. But, as said, I am just a dumb engineer, hoping to be educated by the big-heads sometime, who seem to know it all. Pity is, some of them got insane. (Goedel) (No, I am not Rossi) Guenter ________________________________ Von: "pagnu...@htdconnect.com" <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 0:07 Mittwoch, 11.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation First, I have to say I am not sure Piantelli's observations are real. Maybe he had faulty instruments. But, if he did see protons, and they were from decaying neutrons (sequestered in some decay-attenuating niche), then, he should have seen electrons (and probably some X-rays), I think. But, recall, in Otto Reifenschweiller's experiments - -- "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles" http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf -- "Cold Fusion and Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity" http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf -- "About the possibility of decreased radioactivity of heavy nuclei" http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=512913 - he saw a suppression of both electron beta-particle and x-ray emissions. In one of his papers (I'm not sure if it's in the above), he claims that reduction is strongest when the titanium nano-crystals form colloidal chains - which, I believe, can promote plasmon propagation. Maybe high momentum plasma electrons can stop beta-particles, but not massive protons. Guenter points out that there's a lot of intramural squabbling, and that perhaps several phenomena coexist. Maybe none exist. or - maybe we are watching the Indian "Blind men and an elephant" story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant Axil Axil wrote: > If the proton was produced by free neutron decay, an electron would have > also been produced. These electrons were not seen in the Piantelli’s cloud > chamber. Could this mean that Piantelli’s reaction is different from the > neutron centric Brillouin Energy system’s reaction? > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: > >> It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other >> "bursty") >> phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures - >> i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition. >> >> Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy >> production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays. >> >> BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks: >> >> >> http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/ >> >> Axil Axil wrote: >> > I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of >> the >> > possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems show life >> > after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy >> system…no. >> > A >> > single cause should show the same type of behavior. >> > >> > What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in explanation of this >> “life >> > after death” behavior? >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation >> entitled >> >> - >> >> "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) >> >> New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning" - at - >> >> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen >> >> >> >> He presents evidence that electrons and protons in >> coherent/collective >> >> motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, >> >> can >> >> form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. >> >> >> >> Slides 18-20 ("Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning >> I-III") >> >> review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford >> on >> >> whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce >> >> transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf). >> >> >> >> Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled >> >> electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse >> beam >> >> of >> >> uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence >> >> trumped Wendt's more modest reputation. >> >> >> >> Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to >> reproduce >> >> - >> >> using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's. >> >> >> >> Has anyone tried to reproduce it? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >
