Dear Ruby, i hope you get my message despite typos, I see very badly and wrote in a G.A.E.- Grandchilden Active Environment.
Peter On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
