The key mechanism of the W&L theory is defined in a way to make it very hard or impossible to verify.
The specification of the ultra-low energy neutron was engineered to make it virtually undetectable because it doesn’t move far from the nucleus before its immense nuclear absorption cross section results in its almost immediate incorporation into the nucleus immediately after its creation. The ultra-low energy neutron is a political windfall for LENR since it purportedly explains coulomb barrier penetration without the need to detect this particle. In my biased opinion, my plexciton theory is more experimentally practical. It is centered on an experimentally verified miracle called the hot spot. The hot spot in a lattice has been detected to concentrate input energy up to 500,000,000 times that into output energy levels. Other optimizations could push this concentration level into the trillions. The nice feature of my theory is that it can be experimentally verified. That means a lot. It seems natural to me that people interested in LENR should be interested in finding out more about these hot spots because such huge concentrations of energy are uncommon in nature especially since there is so much commonality between W&L theory and Plexciton theory. NASA even calls their version of W&L theory, Plexciton theory. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Peter has raised an important subject, but one so filled with emotion and > complex arguments, knowing where to start is the problem. The discussion of > theory we are witnessing is an indication of a deeper problem. > > Yes, CF is difficult to explain, but how we go about this discussion is > important. The CMNS discussion group was designed to allow a select group > of people to compare ideas in a safe and respectful way. On many > occasions, this goal has not been achieved. On too many occasions, the > discussion has been distracted by arrogance and hubris. These emotional > reactions are expected because in many cases, we are competing for the same > prize - the prize of explaining and applying the most important discovery > of this century. But we are handicapped by a limited understanding of the > phenomenon and generally by very little suitable training in the required > general science. If we were discussing an accepted phenomenon, the > arguments we would be allowed to make would be restrained by known laws. In > the case of LENR, people feel free to ignore even the most basic laws of > nature. Naturally, this approach generates outrage. Just how far from known > behavior and accepted understanding a theory is permitted to deviate is an > important question, but one that needs to be discussed with civility. Even > so, the problem goes deeper. > > LENR is rejected by the people who determine when and how new ideas are > developed. Why is this the case? I suggest this rejection occurs because > the phenomenon involves a mixture of chemical and nuclear behavior. Both > kinds of understanding are required to explain and apply the phenomenon. > Most chemists have no training in nuclear physics and most physicists have > no training in chemistry. Unfortunately, many physicists believe they > understand all aspects of Nature. Because physicists generally control > technological development of LENR, their collective opinions are important. > I suggest the general rejection of LENR is the result of this combination > of ignorance and arrogance, not because objective proof is lacking and not > because it is called "nuclear". Consequently, I see no solution to the > general rejection until a device having a demonstrated level of commercial > power has been achieved. Only then will the claim be accepted even by > people who insist the phenomenon violates accepted theory. But, how can > this goal be reached? > > At the present time, success in making LENR work results from luck because > no method can be reproduced by everyone who makes the effort. In fact, even > people who can make heat most of the time, still cannot control the process > well enough for commercial application. Achieving this control is > prevented by ignorance of the controlling variables. In other words, until > the conditions required for the nuclear process to occur are identified and > controlled, reliable success will not be possible. Understanding the > nuclear process is not as important as knowing the required conditions > because once the required conditions are created, the nuclear process > occurs without further help. This important and essential insight is > generally ignored when a theoretical understanding is attempted. Too many > attempts either propose impossible conditions to precede the nuclear > process or ignore the initiating conditions completely. I believe this > failure to properly identify the unique and required conditions is the > major flaw in the present theories. This understanding requires a knowledge > of chemistry, not nuclear physics. And so, my essay circles back to the > basic conflict that exists between how chemists and physicists understand > Nature. The LENR phenomenon has revealed this conflict and the resulting > limitations it imposes. Our job is to find ways to avoid the conflict. > > Ed Storms > > > On Mar 21, 2013, at 3:56 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > The concept of COOPETITION is created for solving the > problems of LENR too. Internal hostility and fight is damaging > for the future of LENR. Impressed by some recent discussions > on forums that I have found as counterproductive, I wrote: > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/03/why-so-much-hostility-against-widom.html > > Peter > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMNS" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > >
