OK Peter, let's discuss. I view the LENR process like I would a
complex machine in which all the parts have a function, but each must
work with the other parts for the entire machine to work properly. No
part can be examined to determine its function without considering how
it relates to every other part. Unfortunately, each theory being
proposed to explain LENR is applied to a different part. If a clock
were used as an analogy, one theory explains the spring will ignoring
the balance wheel. Another explains the balance wheel and ignores the
gears.
In other words, if a person proposes how the Coulomb barrier is
reduced, I propose he must also provide a method for releasing the
mass-energy that is consistent with the proposed lowering process. If
a method to form helium is proposed, the method must also show how
tritium and transmutation can be produced.
I realize many people do not consider the LENR process to be a single
machine, but instead a complex mixture of independent processes. They
imagine under some conditions, helium is made. Change the conditions
and transmutation becomes the main reaction. Apparently some
theoreticians expect tritium to form for no apparent reason. This
creates a mayor conflict in how the behavior is explained and creates
a basic question. Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process
that occurs in the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent
processes that occur in various locations in a material, depending on
a complex collection of conditions?
The answer a person makes to this question determines the rest of the
discussion. Consequently, this conflict in basic belief must be
resolved before any discussion is possible. I get the impression that
a great deal of conflict has been created during past discussions
because this basic question is not clearly resolved and lingers as an
unconscious distraction.
Ed Storms
On Apr 28, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed,
Thank you very much for this bright answer.
It seems to me that in the implicit mode you agree with the idea
that CF
has arrived before its time- and this is the reason of its slow and
hesitant
development.
For example re understanding of LENR you had sufficient data to work
out your theory only recently. The reactions take place in
nanocavities.
but what actually the reactions are- you know, I don't know and am
waiting
for experimental results coming from DGT.
I dare to think the taxonomy of LENR groups can be considered more
diverse and complex than those described by you, but perhaps we cn
discuss this peacefully later e.g. for an joint editorial on my
blog, if
you will agree.
Re: "I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-types
reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied by
people who are not committed to the present ideas." I think this
secret is not so difficult and is not unique so
open minded researchers will get the solution- what is the essential
difference
between LENR (passive, powerless, problematic) and LENR+ (active,
autonomous, application-ready). I think the clue is an accelerated
mode of
NAE-genesis.
Peter
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Peter, I'm glad you are trying to look at the LENR phenomenon from a
broad perspective. Let me add a few of my insights about where I
think the field stands right now without naming names.
More than enough information has been accumulated to provide the
basis for the correct explanation and to show how the effect can be
replicated without fail. Nevertheless, we are still struggling to
accept a useful explanation and to make the effect work without fail
because this information is not being used. If I apply the analogy
of a jig saw puzzle, people are trying to assemble the picture while
ignoring a large number of the pieces. The people who are
attempting to create an explanation assemble a little part of the
puzzle and then insist that the whole picture is like their little
piece, with the interpretation of what the little piece shows being
totally in the imagination. Each person has been looking at their
little piece so long, they no longer have the ability to consider
any other interpretation. Normally, new people come into a field of
study and bring with them new insights. This process does not occur
in this field because most people who could provide such a
contribution are not interested. Furthermore, no contribution even
from these outsiders would be useful unless the huge collection of
observed behavior has been mastered, which requires considerable
effect. As a result, most new ideas being debated have very little
relationship to what is real. This ignorance encourages repetition
of failed methods and discussions that lead nowhere.
And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the
effect work but will not tell how because they want to make money
from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have no idea
how to explain their success and very little ability to find out. Of
course, they do not agree, instead believing that a little more time
and money will reveal the secret. Consequently, they are hoping
they can figure out the secret before someone else does and makes
the effect work much better and with total control. As long as most
people continue to think the effect is not real and that the
explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a chance because the
competition will remain weak.
So, from my viewpoint, we have three types of attitudes operating in
the LENR field. First we have most people in science who have no
interest and think the claims are nonsense. In the second group, we
have a few people who have made the effect work, but not well enough
to attract interest from Group #1. The third group consists of
people who have explored various aspect of the effect with mixed
success for the last 24 years. These people think they are the
field. They speak for the field, judge what is real or not, and look
to Fleischmann and Pons as their heros. I have to admit being in
this group, while aspiring to move into group #2.
Nevertheless, I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi-
types reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied
by people who are not committed to the present ideas. This new
blood must come from outside Group #3 because this group will not
accept new ideas from within, as always happens when a field of
study remains isolated too long. Consequently, I'm rooting for the
Rossi-types and hope they can make the effect work well enough for
them to feel free to reveal their secret recipe. At that point, a
swarm of graduate students, will descend on the field and start to
make fast process in finding the correct explanation and the ideal
application. Until then, we in Group #3 are just exploring a fun
hobby with the blind leading the blind to a large extent.
Ed Storms
On Apr 28, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear friends,
This writing is in part about the echo of my appeal to Rossi's
Professors (who by the way do not belong to Rossi at all!) and in
part is about other failures in search of owners:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/04/the-lenr-ists-sunday.html
En ensemble, it is about serious problems and things.
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.
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
