I find these discussions about LENR to be an amazing example of how
people can have beliefs that are in direct conflict with each other
and even with reality itself. Let me give two examples.
First, most people believe Rossi is a fraud and cannot be believed,
but they will nevertheless believe him when he claims his heat results
from transmutation of Ni. They believe him when he claims Cu is the
result and now when Fe is suggested. Yet, absolutely no evidence
exists for these claims. Nevertheless, long and detailed discussions
result.
Second, materials of all kinds have been subjected to conditions
having a huge range of values. Temperature from near absolute zero to
millions of degrees have been used. Pressures from vacuum to those at
the center of the earth have been applied. Yet, nuclear reactions are
not initiated, except when a very rare condition is present.
Scientists rightly have concluded that chemical conditions cannot
cause a nuclear reaction and for very good reasons. Nevertheless,
discussions here pretend that this experience does not exist. People
suggest and seriously discuss how a nuclear reaction might be
initiated without any concern for this huge experience.
As Robin succinctly summarizes "It surprises me that it doesn't happen
more often." My surprise is that this statement even needs to be
made. I know that reality has creased to exist in the political world,
but is this also true in science as discussed on the internet. Yes,
we do not know everything about Nature, but we know a lot. Yes, new
ideas are useful and fun, but must they have no relationship to what
has been discovered over centuries?
As Lou suggests, we need a method that produces the effect reliably.
This goal is being sought but it must be based on a useful
understanding of the process. A useful understanding must be based on
what has been observed and how we now know Nature to function. Unless
these two requirements are applied, the effort to get this
understanding becomes a waste of time. Without the understanding,
trial and error becomes the only available experimental method. So,
please make a serious effort to add to the understanding.
Ed Storms
On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:27 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Do you mean fires > 5000 degree(F)?
Strange that they happen at all.
Rather than doing thousands of tests on alternate designs to find
one which
has no failures over the testing phase, it would be better if they
could
find the cause by replicating it reliably, to establish with
certainty the
chemistry/physics behind the failures.
mixent wrote:
It surprises me that it doesn't happen more often. ;)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
