On Apr 30, 2013, at 6:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed,
I suppose that many initial researchers that began their work in
earnest after the P&F announcement were expecting to see behavior
such as they had seen in hot fusion. It would be unfortunate if
they could not adjust their minds a bit to include observations
associated with the new systems and perhaps that is the problem.
Had cold fusion been easy to achieve we would not be here discussing
the issue since anyone with the slightest amount of curiosity would
be hooked with that first encounter. Maybe that is where the
original dividing line appeared and it is too bad that only a few
were successful in that first round.
It is not entirely obvious that current physics has a good
explanation for how LENR operates. Several competing theories vie
for acceptance while none has been shown to be correct at this
time. It would not be surprising to find that none of the present
concepts prove accurate, but that will only be sorted out with
time. Until that happens, no one can possibly rule out a new
theory which may come about with a lot of serendipity. I sustain
the thought that one day someone will present that missing link and
most of us will be surprised by the implications.
Dave,
The question is, What does a theory have to do to be accepted? In the
ideal world, a theory must explain what is observed and make
predictions that can be tested. A theory must not conflict with basic
laws unless a very compelling reason is given. A theory must show
logical relationships between the observed behaviors without excessive
use of assumptions. Do any of the theories or suggested explanations
meet these requirements? I see very little indication that these
requirements are important to anyone. In fact, I suggested an
explanation that met all of these requirements, but this was either
rejected or ignored. Consequently, I have very little hope for any
theory being accepted any time soon.
You have a wonderful vessel of knowledge that will greatly aid in
the search for truth. Many clues are available in the historical
records which you can call upon to either support or undermine fresh
ideas. I have been a party to many blue sky meetings and one of the
prime rules is to refrain from criticism of what we may think of as
insane ideas so that they can be proposed without making the person
suggesting them feel insecure or stupid. Too much criticism and the
communication paths shut down which is not what is needed. Many of
the vortex members have ideas that they want to have discussed in
the open and it is up to you, I and the others to allow them that
privilege. Why would we expect them to keep quiet unless they state
accepted theory when it is apparent that that theory may not be
correct?
Of course, personal attack should not be permitted and ideas should be
discussed objectively. However, what benefit results from allowing
ideas that have no relationship to observed behavior or known laws of
Nature to dominate a discussion? Scientific discussion is different
from political or religious discussion. Scientific discussion tries
to understand a reality that can be tested; one that actually exists.
This reality is not just an opinion.
Ed, how much damage does it do for someone to propose an idea that
most everyone else realizes has major problems? You are not
obligated to respond and the concept will just die out in short
order. We all gain by having participation of new persons and their
fresh minds. Perhaps a spark will ignite a long hidden fuse and
additional pieces will fit into place. This list would be totally
dead if only the correct theory were allowed to be posted!
OK, if the purpose is to shoot the bull and just enjoy sharing
opinions, then the goal is not a search for reality. Then no one
should expect anything of lasting value to result from the discussion,
other than the fun. People are just talking for the fun of talking.
This is ok and worthwhile, but the process should not be confused with
trying to gain knowledge.
I am sure that there have been many smart people working on
resolution to the LENR problems over the years, but they have not
been successful thus far. And, I suspect that many more smart
people have decided to avoid the subject because of the perception
that it is without merit. We need all the help that can be
summoned our way so lets not discourage new members by making them
feel ignorant.
How does a person avoid making an ignorant person feel ignorant? If I
entered a group of people who are knowledgeable about, say biology, I
would feel ignorant. I would not expect my opinions to have any value
until I listened and learned. I would ask questions and not make
statements. I would expect to be shown the errors in my thinking.
Gradually, I would learn what was need to have a useful opinion. This
does not seem to be the approach taken when CF is discussed. People
seem to think any idea is equally valid, that one person's opinion is
as good as any other. Since no theory has been accepted, any idea is
equal to any other idea.
We could agree that us older folks have all the knowledge and the
new guys are just fiddling around trying to find their way within
the dark, but we should realize that many of the great discoveries
of the past were made by very young, and not too well trained guys
with new ways of looking at the sciences. How old was Einstein when
he came out of nowhere with his theories? Who taught him about
special relativity? I am sure that there were a multitude of older
guys around that thought they knew everything that was important,
but he was the one that changed science. And, once he became one of
the older guys, his contributions slowed down in comparison.
We are trying to explain a phenomenon of Nature. Many examples exist
of similar occasions in the past when observation did not make sense
in terms of what was believed. Radioactivity, X-rays,
superconductivity presented a similar difficulty. In contrast to
LENR, each of these unexpected behaviors could be easily duplicated
and examined at leisure. LENR shows itself only on occasion.
Consequently, all the lucky occasions must be treated like nuggets of
gold that are used to locate the source by noting the patterns created
by their discovered locations. Rather than using all the nuggets,
people will take the location of one nugget and from this one finding
draw an imaginary map about where the primary source might be
located. Of course, this might result in a lucky guess.
Unfortunately, when people start to dig where their guess says the
source is located, they find no gold. Using this analogy, I think
Rossi has found a rich collection of nuggets but not the main source.
In addition, he has no interest in telling any one where this
collection is located. In fact, he might even give false directions to
keep people away.
So, if you were a prospector who had explored the gold field and came
upon a new guy wondering aimlessly looking for gold, what would you
do? Would you try to tell him where the previous nuggets were found
and correct him when he became lost, or allow him to continue
wondering aimlessly? Would you listen to his wild ideas about where
he thinks the gold is located or encourage him to look in a different
place, at the risk of making him feel ignorant?
Ed
Don't get me wrong, I think us older guys are far smarter than the
younger ones. ;) But, sometimes it takes more than knowledge to
solve a problem or discover a new concept. In many cases too much
knowledge actually gets in the way of problem solving. I personally
find it easy to overlook a parameter that I think that I completely
understand when in actuality it hides aspects that should have been
taken into consideration. I am confident that you find yourself
beginning at F=M*A on occasions when you find yourself facing a dead
end with no way out. Only by going back to the bare basics can you
proceed step by step to reach the correct conclusion.
You mention Rossi as often making statements that are contrary and
that many accept as facts. I agree with you that he is an
interesting subject to study, but there are subtle secrets that slip
out on occasions from his lair and many of these appear to contain
morsels of facts. He is obviously not well versed in current
physics but I can detect that he is very good at getting things
accomplished. Even though I remain skeptical of his claims, it
would not surprise me to find that he actually has something that
one day will be proven valid. I keep my fingers crossed.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li-battery
fires
On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:35 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I agree with what you are saying Jed. LENR would have long ago
been understood had the theories that were current in physics been
able to explain it.
Dave, this is not the reason LENR has been rejected. The two basic
reasons are:
1. People expected LENR to behave exactly like hot fusion. When it
did not have the expected radiation, the claim was rejected. The
claims of LENR not being consistent with laws of physics is only
based on the laws that apply to hot fusion. No conflict exists with
the basic laws of physics other than the conflicts in several of the
proposed theories.
2. The second reason was the inability of critical people to
replicate the claim. Now rejection is based on complete ignorance of
what has been discovered.
We need the open minded thinking that is seen in vortex to
eventually hit upon the idea that leads to success.
The process is not like playing poker and hoping for a good
combination of cards. Many very smart people who have studied the
effect for years are trying to put the pieces together. A discussion
resulting in random ideas having no relationship to what has been
observed will have no value and the result will not be accepted by
anyone of importance.
Of course, it is important to have the knowledge contained within
the minds of those that have been struggling for years on the
problems. They bring common sense to the table and they should
easily be able to point out flaws in new concepts and ideas if the
evidence points in other directions.
Yes, and that is what several people have been trying to do, but you
see how little success they have.
It would not be too surprising for a young kid to come up with the
key concept in his shower one day. One of us older guys might get
lucky as well, but we tend to be too set in our ways!
Old guys are set in their ways but they also have knowledge, which
young guys lack. Somehow a happy medium must be found.
I encourage others to open their minds and let ideas flow out. It
is important to keep from discouraging free thought in situations
such as this.
I'm not trying to discourage free discussion and new ideas. I'm
trying to discourage ideas based on ignorance.
Ed Storms
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li-battery
fires
Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
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.
I believe those are different groups of people. Where there is
overlap, the person is saying "assume for the sake of argument that
Rossi is telling the truth . . ."
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.
Generally speaking yes, but there have been a few discoveries that
were novel and unprecedented, such as x-rays and high temperature
superconductors (HTSC). As I understand it, to explain x-rays,
physicists had to overturn a lot of established physics. Last I
checked, HTSC has not been explained at all.
Until we do explain cold fusion, the possibility remains that it
has almost no connection to previously established physics. That
would be something along the lines of the Mills effect or zero-
point energy.
I think it goes too far to say that an explanation "must be based
on what has been observed." Revolutionary discoveries such as the x-
ray may be increasingly rare, but we cannot rule them out. To say
"how we now know Nature to function" goes too far. It is only how
we think we know. It can always be wrong. This is described in many
books about the philosophy of science. Physics seldom changes these
days, but I think that is a cultural problem. There are no
revolutions because the physicists ignore anomalies.
- Jed
