At 04:43 PM 5/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Axil Axil <<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://pesn.com/2012/04/28/9602083_NanoSpire_Inc_on_Harnessing_Cavitation_Zero_Point_Energy_to_Produce_Fusion_and_Transmutation_in_Water/>http://pesn.com/2012/04/28/9602083_NanoSpire_Inc_on_Harnessing_Cavitation_Zero_Point_Energy_to_Produce_Fusion_and_Transmutation_in_Water/
the pictures from LeClair are in the comments section of this blog.
Thanks. Not many photos there. Only one, it seems. I do not know
what to make of it. Ed Storms is quoted:
I examined the material sent by NanoSpire and saw nothing unusual. I
have no reason to doubt the experience they claim, but I have no
reason to believe it either. As for the theory, it makes no sense
based on my understanding of science.
That is sensible.
LeClair points to a comment previously by Ed Storms:
Hi Mark,
Just so that we are all clear about how to describe what you saw,
let me explain some things *** does not understand. Two different
types of nuclear reactions are now know; that which produces
energetic radiation (1) and that which does not (2). Hot fusion and
all nuclear reactions that are initiated by applying significant
energy fall into the first category. This is the realm of normal
physics. The one unique aspect of the other branch of nuclear
physics is the absence of energetic radiation even though
significant heat energy is generated. This branch includes cold
fusion, which like hot fusion, results in fusion as well as
transmutation. You triggered a reaction in the first branch by
applying high energy. In addition, you triggered many kinds of very
energetic nuclear reactions, not just fusion. Therefore, your
reaction is not LENR or cold fusion. Nevertheless, the reaction you
triggered is novel and unexpected.
There is a rather obvious attempt here to claim contradiction in what
Storms wrote. In fact, though, the prior comment from Storms was
merely following a normal courtesy of assuming that what a writer
claims as to their own experience is true. Storms' focus was on
distinguishing hot fusion from cold fusion and LENR. What LeClair has
reported is obviously not LENR.
Sterling Allan, in reporting what LeClair claims, is demonstrating
phenomenal naivete. He seems to think that an ability to string
together pseudoscientific word-salad is equivalent to "genius."
Possibly. But LeClair clearly has a whole story he's invented to
explain his results, including "self-accelerated" water crystals
powered by Zero Point Energy, but LeClair has been asked about what
the experimental basis is for his conclusions about mechanism. He's
never answered, as far as I've seen. He just repeats his story, his theory.
He made up the theory, that's clear. Brilliant? Well, if it is
confirmed, we might conclude so. Allan seems to overlook that almost
none of LeClair's story has been confirmed.
If the "LeClair Effect" is confirmed, it will still be rather
apparent that this "genius" is "crazy." "Crazy" has no clear
definition, it is a social concept, in fact. LeClair either does not
know how to communicate with scientists, or he doesn't care to try.
He does not communicate the observations on which his complex
theoretical structure is based. What we know from his accounts is
that he creates a bubble in a specific location with respect to a
plate with holes in it, so that when the bubble collapses, the shock
wave -- or other resulting effect -- is focused on a target on the
other side of the plate. Or maybe he's, in the relevant experiments,
doing something else. We have seen no sober experimental reports from
him that give the specific details.
To a non-scientist, LeClair's "explanations" may be appealing.
However, this appeal seems to be based on "Gee, he sounds like he
knows what he's talking about," and "I don't understand this at all,
but, wow, this could be really important. Therefore he's a genius."
Maybe he's a genius, it does take a certain kind of mind to be able
to absorb those concepts (apparently LeClair did not originate the
concept of ZPE being involved with sonoluminescence) and put them
together into sentences....
But there is no evidence visible, even if we take every report from
LeClair as representing what actually happened (i.e., what he and
others would have *seen*), that connects his reports with the
theories he liberally uses to describe what happened. For example,
why does he describe a "crystal"? If you look at his full set of
claims, those "crystals" are travelling at close to the velocity of
light. Okay, how did he observe them? He'd see evidence of impact,
say. How did he infer "crystal" from the evidence of impact? How did
he infer self-acceleration, and the massive violation of conservation
of momentum? How does he distinguish this from high energy at generation?
LeClair does not know how to communicate to those who might actually
understand him. He shows a microphotograph of a plate, pointing out
how "clear" the tracks are compared to those pitiful triple tracks
reported by the U.S. Navy. What this shows is that he has no
understanding of the SPAWAR work, at all. Not his field, for sure.
He's a cavitation engineer, that's his training. If his effect is
real, he was, in fact, positioned to find this.
Those lines in the acrylic plate might be radiation tracks, or they
might be heat-crazing, or they might be what you see on such a plate
if you look at it with a microscope. There are no controls presented.
The story just doesn't fit together, though, so far. It would be
trivial, if LeClair wanted to, to come up with serious confirmatory
evidence. He's claiming he's ready for commercial application, a
slam-dunk. Based on a couple of experiments? That were disasters,
massively dangerous, if we take his reports at face value?
It does not compute.
