Dear Ruby, Thank you for making this discussion more serious and fundamental. Please have a lot of patience with a grumpy old man having unorthodox ideas re CF/LENR. It seems Nature behaves someetimes as a bad girl, respecting rules that differ from ours.
You wrote: *" 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."* Absolutely correct, this is the essence of the scientific method, acreative dogma, a must. You are not allowed to develop a technology if you don't know well how it works. However what to do if you are not able to understand, you cannot create a theory fulfilling this elementary request? Perhaps you cannot have a theory because the phenomenon/process was discovered too early and science is not prepared to explain it. Add to this that the experimental situation is simply dreadful- oly, say, one experiment from 5-6 gives a measurable result. the phenomenon clearly exists but cannot be controlled. )i know why but nobody believes me and ed Storms rejects my air poisoning hypothesis) What TO THEN? You have to abandon the issue, or ...you can reframe the problem: the TASK is to create by radical changes - a process that works well, the question was"why it works/not?;the alternative is to make it work, to use very smart engineering for that. Theories were explicative, prohibitive and predictive- we have to add a fourth category- productive theory, active- obtain understanding by making radical changes. This was done by Andrea Rossi and by DGT (see their "make hydrogen more reactive and metal more receptive) I have written much about this on my blog. If the scientific method does not work, use the hybrid technological scientific method - engineering is the key. I have promoted this idea staring from the very first isssue of Infinite Energy. You wrote: *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.* Just to mention that at birth NAE was/ were 'active sites" see please: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf and "environment is not correct, because it is about something very LOCAL- the real "enviroment, nuclear active is the complete CelFP or Piantelli the entire E-cat or Hyperion. To manage crAcking of a metallic material is an awfully complex task. Cracking is not reversible- at least not at room temperature and is a sacrificial operation as in thermal shields of rockets- based on ablation. For a technologist it is repugnant. You wrote- re D +D and H+ H rejected: *:"This is speculation. I would like to see this figured out one way or the other. How do you do that?"* See please the papers results of Piantelli, Rossi, DGT and of Ahern et other nanopowder studies. And yes, it is some speculation in it. However I know no proof for it. Is it some proof in the book of Ed? You wrote: (Pd D is technologically dead if wet, electrochemical) *A mug of coffee is bad enough near my computer.* Non capisco however as faster we will refocus he research in our field as sooner it will go well. I don't expect you will take such an initiative on Cold Fusion Now or to publish my innfamous: "eevrything I knew about cold fusion was wrong" but the "palladium addio!" moment will arrive, I bet. you wrote re DGT, Rossi: *"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." * We will know a lot soon from both LENR+ technologies. It is about nano- surfaces, nano-antennas but NOT cracks, IMHO. PLEASE listen very carefully to what our friend AXIL says here! Take a look to my cited paper re the concept of surface, today it is even more complex. Storms looks to many data, true, however many important data are still missing. My best wishes, Peter On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote: > 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 > www.coldfusionnow.org > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
