On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
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).
That is were we differ, Eric. A well thought out paper is essential
because otherwise a person can not know what is being claimed. Too
often the ideas are simply word salads and make no sense. As for
knowledge, are you suggesting that a person who has no knowledge
about, say genetic theory, might actually suggest a useful idea to an
expert? I find this possibility so unlikely that it should be treated
the same way winning the lottery would be treated. Yes, someone will
win, but I would not bet the farm or even a buck.
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.
NO Eric. The physics community looked into CF very carefully. But when
it failed to be replicated by the right people and the hot fusion
people realized the threat, they came out strong against the idea.
This reaction was not based on trivial marketing. It was based on well
understood and rational self-interest. Most physicists are not fools.
They know what will advance their careers and what will not. That self
interest still stops support even though the experimental support is
overwhelming. Now, most skepticism is driven by ignorance.
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 have explained how this slow release works. My explanation is
different from Ron's and from the many other efforts to explain the
same thing. Each method has its limitations, mine included. We have
to choose a method that has the fewest limitations and does not
conflict with well understood behavior. Ron does not do this. His
mechanism is filled with conflicts- too many for me to spend time
describing.
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.
If this is the idea, then it is useless out of the box. First of all,
X-rays are not normally applied, yet LENR occurs. Second, when X-rays
have been applied to all kinds of materials, including PdD, NO LENR is
observed. When high energy IS applied by ion bombardment, the result
is HOT FUSION not COLD FUSION. Cold fusion will occur without any
energy being applied and become more intense if applied energy is
increased. Therefore, LENR is not started by any applied energy other
than normal temperature or small chemical effects. Furthermore, this
process simply CAN NOT occur in a normal material. Ron ignores this
fact.
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.
To you but not to me. How important this opinion is to you would
depend on how much money you might want to spend exploring Ron's idea
compared to mine. Opinions are only important if they have
consequences. So where, hypothetically, would you put your money?
Ed
Eric
