On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary ideas > without any connection to what is known that even starting a critique is > difficult. The problem is made worse when the description is second hand. > Many statements made in the first paragraph have no relationship to > observed behavior. Consequently, they individually and collectively make > the basic idea useless. I suggest if Ron wants to discuss his ideas, he > publish them in a paper where they can be studied and evaluated, after > which we can discuss what he means. If he has published a paper, please > send it to me. Ron has only himself to blame for not writing up his thoughts in a paper that goes beyond the long physics.stackexchange.com post that he posted. But he did not ask me to be the unofficial booster for his theory on this list; I assumed that role voluntarily. Any errors in the discussion of it are mine. I personally do not care all that much about the completeness or polish of the presentation of idea -- obviously, a nice, professional presentation is desirable. But it's hardly a requirement, since truth can be lying anywhere, even in the remarks of someone who knows very little about a subject (which is not at all the case with Ron). My hunch is that the physics establishment failed to look into cold fusion largely for this reason -- it was not packaged in the way that they wanted, and the presentation of the evidence for the anomaly did not go through the proper channels. As a consequence, the delay in looking into it has been there loss, and ours as well. There are few arbitrary ideas in Ron's theory, as far as I can tell. There are gaps that must be filled, but that's the nature of a theory in progress. One would prefer that there be gaps than that there be mistaken ideas that will derail further exploration of a possibility. I believe that one idea that is likely to be mistaken and that thereby risks derailing further exploration is that you can have a gradual release of mass-energy from a nuclear reaction -- when presented with evidence that leads to this hypothesis, I think one should first look at whether one's interpretation of the evidence might not be mistaken before coming back to it. This is what I'm trying to do. I clearly have a different view of reality than many people here on Vortex. > This is based on observing how materials behave under a wide variety of > conditions. The description Ron gives (through you) simply does not fit > with what I know to be true. For example, atoms DO NOT spontaneously > initiate a nuclear reaction of any kind in normal material. > I think you've misunderstood the hypothesis. Ron is not suggesting that atoms spontaneously initiate a nuclear reaction. He posits an effect, similar to the Auger process, in which an incoming x-ray will lead to an impulse (~20 keV) being delivered to a nearby deuterium nucleus through the mediation of a palladium atom. This sets the deuterium nucleus on its way and leads to the other things that have been discussed. It is not difficult to imagine that there are plenty of x-rays of sufficient energy to kick off such events, whether coming from cosmic rays or from other noise in the background. The larger concept is that a palladium lattice is could be a lot like a pinball machine -- it is easy for the deuterium nuclei within it to be bounced around and approach lattice sites. Robin has clarified that because it takes time for the deuterons to rebound, there is an enhanced probability that they will overlap. All of this sounds pretty reasonable. Eric
