I will get interested in a theory when it can explain how any set of output elements can be produced from some other collection of input elements.
Both the Rossi ash assay and the DGT ash assay show a high flexibility of transmutation products in this regard. As another example, the transmutation process demonstrated by LeClairs cavitation reaction is an extreme in its range of transmutation flexibility; Furthermore, LeClairs says that he can adjust his reaction to produce either a limited range of output elements or an extreme element transmutation range. How can this be hot fusion? Hot fusion works only one way. As I understand the situation, when you performed the assay of LeClairs transmutation results, you dismissed these extreme transmutation results out of hand as not relevant to LENR. I assumed your reaction was rooted in the fact that the LeClair results did not conform to your mindset about LENR theory. In the long history of LENR experimentation, there are many transmutation results that are highly irregular. In your conception of LENR, you expect transmutation to be limited and well-defined. This might be true for LENR but not for LENR+ as Peter calls it. I am after a LENR+ theory because it is powerful and potentially useful and regard LENR to be just a curiosity whose time has passed. Yes, you have spent years looking into LENR but this experience may not be applicable to LENR+ and the Ni/H reactor, or LeClair’s reactor for that matter. I think the confusion between LENR and LENR+ has caused much confusion in the discussion of theories. What happens down deep in the primary level of the LENR and LENR+ reactions may be the same thing. But what happens above that is completely different. You have called these processes “Rossi’s secrets” and that is what I am after. On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > > 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 > > > >
