Dear Jones, It is my duty to be the first to do hara-kiri-seppukku if the cracking-hydroton combination will be demonstrated to be real-see more about what I wrote some 2 years ago and have not retracted:
SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING ED STORMS’ NEW LENR THEORY. *http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/some-questions-regarding-ed-storms-new.html <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/some-questions-regarding-ed-storms-new.html>* Ed Storms' answers to 5 questions. Questions No. 6 and 7 *http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/ed-storms-answers-to-5-questions.html <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/ed-storms-answers-to-5-questions.html>* *LENR AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD* *http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/lenr-and-scientific-method-subject-of.html <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/lenr-and-scientific-method-subject-of.html>* Now, cracks actually can be studied, are they predominantly monodimensional as it is probably desired- chennels or bidimensional, can cracking be controlled? It has much to do with metallurgy. Some experiments could be done with nanotubes- probably if the material of the walls is not relevant. If Ed is right, I will gladly apologize in any case. As I have shown inthe VUCA paper, we need ceratainties. Peter On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Yes, it is unfortunate for the field, Peter. > > > > However, it should be acknowledged that no one in LENR has done more than > to further the field than Storms. And no one in LENR is more knowledgeable, > but the bottom line is that “none of us is as smart as all of us,” and if > Storms is wrong about important details related to the Ni-H arena, based on > his long history with Pd-D - then we should not blindly follow in the wrong > direction, simply because of that earlier success and unsurpassed > reputation. > > > > This should be science – not politics. And time is of the essence. Almost > all of the great scientists have been wrong about details of emerging > technology, late in their careers. Not to mention that Ed Storms may yet be > proved to be correct - to the embarrassment of critics. But if so, it will > be based on reliable data and not past accomplishment - and that data does > not seem to support his view now. I’ll be first in line for a ceremonial > hari-kari if data shows up of protons fusing to deuterium in metal cracks. > Peter may decline to be second J but an apology will suffice. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > *From:* Peter Gluck > > > > Dear Jones, > > > > I find that your analysis of the book is correct unfortunately for the > fiedl > > and we have only a partial explanation of what has happened and no > > prediction/instructions for a research strategy having chances to helo > researcher to solve the endemic problems of LENR we all know well. > > > > I have criticized the paper for similar weaknesses as those shown by you, > > when it was only in form of a paper. > > See please my questions here: > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/some-questions-regarding-ed-storms-new.html > > > > > Ed has answered the questions both on my Blog and at CMNS but we could not > agree. Ed said he will write a book and perhaps by reading it I will be > able to undesrtand and appreciate his New Theory. > > My objections to it were: > > - a destructive and practically unmanageable process based on cracking > cannot be basis for a commercial technology; > > - Pd D and transition metals H processes are different and not D +D and H > +H, Mpther Nature do not accepts such constraints > > > > - Pd D is technologically dead if wet, electrochemical > > > > - the LENR+ processes (DGT, Rossi) seems to work outside this theory > > > > 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. > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Finally finished "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" over the > weekend and find it to be a mixed bag - brilliant in places, but > disappointing in others. There is no "cutting-edge" to be found here, if > that is what you are looking for. I was, and maybe that is my problem. It > can be recommended as a fine historical piece, very well-researched - but > do > not expect much more. > > Here is my main objection to Ed Storms' book from what is admittedly a > minority point of view. It is a historical account of the first twenty > years > which overlooks the importance of new work, and that Ni-H is the commercial > savior of LENR. All of that wonderful prior work with Pd-D, which set the > table for where we are now, is valuable and intuitive, but .... To be > blunt, > when one is lost in time, with a focus on history, then the baggage that > comes with that viewpoint can interfere with accurate understanding of > where > we are going. Palladium cannot really help us in the long run, and the best > hope for deuterium now rests with Mizuno's new work. BTW - Mizuno's > important new work is ignored by Ed and he cherry-pick data from old work > that contradicts the new. That is almost unforgiveable in a book which > promises accurate explanations. > > In short, Storms is only accurate for understanding results which were > prior > to Rossi and to "nano" but then falls flat - insofar as opening up the > future. The book overlooks the most important new developments in LENR, > like > nanotechnology and SPP, or else fails to analyze them properly. I finished > this book wanting much more and thinking that I had already read most of it > anyway. > > In 24 years of accumulated experiment, which includes Mills - the > experimental results are often contradictory, when considered in toto. When > one is looking for commonality, as in this book, a general theme should > emerge. That is where Ed's book fails - it begins with a false assumption > and ends with a theme that points us in the wrong direction. To wit: > > 1) Fusion of deuterium in a Pd matrix or crack strongly appears to be > a > novel kind of gammaless nuclear fusion, with helium or tritium as the ash. > This is where Ed's account is authoritative and helpful. He is an expert > with Pd-D. > > 2) However, deuterium can participate in thermal gain without fusion, > as the new Mizuno work indicates, which work is ignored as are many > important new developments - like Cravens extremely important NI-Week demo. > > 3) Reactions of protons in a metal matrix (no deuterium) strongly > appears to be non-fusion, having almost no indicia of fusion, as in Rossi's > work; but it can be nuclear in the sense of nuclear mass being converted > into energy. Rossi is marginalized. > > 4) Ed does not to believe that the two isotopes, deuterium and protium > can entail completely different modalities for thermal gain - and so he > proceeds to lump Ni-H into a category where it is not well-suited. Thus, > for > the segment of LENR which deals with Ni-H, his book is both wrong and > counterproductive, since it casts the entire sub-field into chaos for the > start by confusing two pathways as one. > > 5) It should be noted, in defense of point 3 that slight transmutation > is seen on rare occasion by a minority of researchers (notably Piantelli), > but it is three orders of magnitude too low to account for excess heat. > When > copper is found with nickel it is in the natural isotope ratio which > statistically proves absolutely that it cannot be formed from nickel. > > In short, this book is authoritative and helpful for understanding the > history of cold fusion, Pd-D and most of the experiments following in the > footsteps of P&F. That is the good part and if this is what you are after, > then do not read-on. > > As for the downside, Storms overlook or marginalizes the fact that Ni-H may > not be related to Pd-D and may not be fusion at all. He emphasizes the few > findings which point to fusion, and fails to even mention contrary > arguments > and weight of evidence. The two isotopes are extraordinarily different and > it makes no sense to lump them into the same modality. The bottom line for > Storms book is that it will bring you up to date to around the year 2010 - > in terms of where the field was then, but fails to move beyond that > limitation. > > In neglecting to emphasize the importance of Ni-H, mention the zero point > field, nanomagnetism (or almost anything related to nanotechnology), giving > half a sentence to surface plasmons, marginalizing Rossi, Cravens, Mizuno, > Mills, and ignoring Ahern, plus - ignoring dozens of other cutting-edge > subjects, "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" should instead > be > called "The History of Cold Fusion in Palladium." > > But as disappointing as it was to me, it was still worth the time, and you > may agree with Ed's perspective anyway, so have at it! > > > > > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > > Cluj, Romania > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
