On 7/21/14, 1:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Despite his expertise, or perhaps because of it - Storms appears to be
misguided about Pd-D being relevant for Ni-H. In the opinion of many,
there are better explanations, and they should be heard without the
observers publishing their own book. That is what forums are designed
for. There is no way to be supportive of a book that marginalizes all
three of the best remaining hopes for commercialization of LENR –
Rossi, Mizuno, and Mills, and that is the problem in a nutshell.
Therefore and again, if anyone can indeed show evidence of this kind
of fusion “data rules”. We cannot go beyond the hard facts and the
data available, and as of mid July 2014 there appears to be no
meaningful probability that fusion of protons into deuterium can be
involved in any of the best experimental work being done.
For commercialization to be a reality, and for the technology to be
efficient and maximized, a theory of LENR must be found. This does not
marginalize research and engineering efforts. It helps these
experimental efforts by moving the hunt for a theory forward.
If there are "hard facts and data" on BECs forming at high temperature
inside LENR reactors, or any of the other theoretical constructs, we
must make that available - and show the relationship to the twenty-five
years of data generated so far.
If there are no hard facts to replace assumptions in these theories, It
would appear that there is as much evidence for fusion of protons into
deuterium by default. And, if Storms' logic is able to finish the job,
then he is ahead by one length only. Only testing will tell.
We should ask: What should these tests be? How can we achieve these
answers?
That reaction of protons fusing to deuterium is a cornerstone which Ed
has chosen to build on for Ni-H, so all we can do for now is disagree
- and wait for better data.
The book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction focuses on Pd-D
systems because of the mountain of data that few look at twice. Also,
because Storms makes the case for the Pd-D and Ni-H ( and all transition
metal hydrides) generating the same LENR process, he writes how to make
it happen in Pd-D, but keeps the Ni-H info close to vest for use in his lab.
Jones, there are five different theories that are currently isolated
islands in a sea of perpetually prototype technology. No one agrees on
anything, and there is no discussion about the assumptions in each
theory, about how those assumptions are plausible, or not, and how the
twenty-five years of data is expressed in each of those theories. There
is no discussion about hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion as
predictions are few.
As an advocate, I want to see some serious discussion about these issues
to get this thing figured out. I don't care which theory is ultimately
chosen. I want a technology and some new lifestyle options! Storms
raises good questions. I can only hope egos are dropped, poor
communication skills are forgiven, and the smart people in the room do
something tangible to make LENR a reality.
*From:*Peter Gluck
- a destructive and practically unmanageable process based on cracking
cannot be basis for a commercial technology;
Peter, if a nanocrack is indeed the NAE, then the idea would be to
manufacture nanocracks, not leave them to be created by chance, as has
been the case so far.
- Pd D and transition metals H processes are different and not D +D
and H +H, Mpther Nature do not accepts such constraints
This is speculation. I would like to see this figured out one way or
the other. How do you do that?
- Pd D is technologically dead if wet, electrochemical
A mug of coffee is bad enough near my computer.
- the LENR+ processes (DGT, Rossi) seems to work outside this theory
If nanocracks are the NAE, and if the process works through hydrotons,
then the proprietary processing of the nickel surface would be expected
to make nano-spaces for the hydrogen to fill.
Mea culpa probably_ I could not understand the concept of hydrotons
More important LENR is a multi-, ,multi- process see my Questions.
I know for sure- the book is excellent as all publications of Ed, but
we still have to wait for a chain of theories explaining LENR.
I can only hope the actual questions are addressed. A theory of LENR
should be at the top of the list on
things-to-do-for-nuclear-scientists-this-year if we want to maximize the
technology. Storms takes the approach of looking at the data, finding
commonalities, and applying logic. Judging by the state of LENR theory
today, and the lack of one, how could that be bad?
Ruby
Peter
--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org>
www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org>
