On 7/22/14, 7:28 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
*From:*Ruby
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.
Yes it is frustrating but the glimmer of hope is that our deep level
of frustration, shared by almost everyone on this list, points
directly to the emerging answer.
And - we appreciate your work as an advocate, Ruby.
Thank you Jones. I am a sucker for the underdog. Especially one that
could bring forward a different world paradigm.
Egos and poor communication are part of the problem which you are
addressing. But smart people are involved, needy and smart; and with
more data – the correct answer(s) will emerge. We are on the cusp of
that in 2014, and thirsty for more accurate data. That there was
really nothing new in Storm’s book, especially new data - is part of
the frustration level. He has done such good experimental work is the
past, that there was an expectation of a breakthrough coming from his
Lab and not from his Library.
I believe that the twenty-five years of data had not been properly
looked at wholly. Storms did that, and he was uniquely positioned to do
that by the fact that he had been there from the start, and he had
performed several surveys of the field over the past couple decades.
McKubre was right in saying that Storms probably knows more than anyone
about the field - including new data. So a summary from the Library is
in good order. There are so many early results that have clues to this
reaction.
He is not a mathematician, nor is he a quantum mechanics expert. He has
tried to understand things from the ground up, and look fresh at the
basics. If an assumption is wrong, no amount of quantum mechanics will
make it right. Apply math on plausible ideas that support the data, and
we can get somewhere.
He is packaging this book and survey of theories in language that people
outside the field can understand. Looking at today's LENR theories,
there are clearly holes (the unacknowledged assumptions) that turn
conventional scientists away from this field. When the LENR community
of theoriests cannot face these holes, and discuss the discrepancies,
how can mainstream science want to jump in? Storms wants new people to
start seriously thinking about this field, and he made a book that is
logically consistent to do that.
But that overall answer – as to which theory is correct - is an answer
that will not please everyone, and perhaps not please anyone - since
the correct answer will simply be something closer to “all-of-them”
instead of “one-or-the-other.”
I don't see how any of these theories can merge. Either there is
electron capture, or there is a BEC, or a hydroton, or ..... or not.
They are completely different and unrelated ideas to me.
That is too glib, so let me explain. There are indeed at least five
good theories or partial theories - more like 12 if we count
“facilitating concepts” as a theory, of which Ed’s is but one, but
they are not “isolated islands”. Many of them, even all of them
interact, and will probably be shown to be partially active in the
same experiment.
If that is true, I don't see it. I don't see how a BEC interacts with
low-momentum neutron creation. I am not an expert, though. That is why
I talk to the scientists and they explain it to me. Robert Godes
explained his Quantum Fusion to me, George Miley explained his swimming
electrons and clusters to me, and Storms has explained his hydroton to
me. Every single one of them had no relation to other, in their words
or concepts.
The good-news / bad-news for Ed Storms book is that the NAE
observation could be among the most active, seen in almost all
experiments… ! hurray ! … but the bad news is that Storms’ further
assertion of protons fusing to deuterium could be active in only a few
ppm – almost never. If true, this is hurtful to Ed, who has convinced
himself that he alone has this problem figured out. Thus he is not
happy with the criticism. Same for W-L in that some ultra-cold
neutrons are likely to be found, but their explanation is grossly
insufficient. Same for Rossi-Focardi – in claiming nickel transmutation.
Yes, he could be wrong. The difference here is that his claim is
consistent with the vast majority of data on lenr.org, and he has a
logically consistent framework to house a dozen predictions. Now is the
time to test whether he is right or wrong.
Perhaps you could start a thread where for each theory, the initial
assumptions are listed, and the testable predictions made by that theory
are listed. That would be helpful in sifting through the facts vs.
conjectures.
Rossi is already backing-off ANY theory, including Focardi’s, since he
has better data – not yet shared. Do not sell Rossi short. He is a
cantankerous genius, but well-read, and Storms made a mistake is not
adding an entire chapter on Rossi and Mills. It would not surprise me
to learn that Rossi reads this forum. And although nickel > copper is
a reaction which could happen occasionally, it is probably down there
in the ppm range, about the same as Storm’s P-e-P. But it explains
Piantelli’s oddball results better than he can.
Andrea Rossi is an amazing inventor and engineer and I can't wait to
hear about the results of this recent long-term test. He is primarily an
experimentalist though, and that's his strength. The transmutation idea
likely came from Focardi. As an engineer, Rossi knows to remain
flexible, and do whatever he can to move his design forward. He will
use whatever information is available, anything that he cares to set his
eyes on. That is how he succeeds.
LENR is a complex multi-layered phenomenon in which most of the
theories could be partially relevant to one degree or another. QM is
about probability. The GUT will simply integrate them in a new way,
when it happens. . BTW - Storms was out of character to “dis” quantum
tunneling. I find that most bizarre.
Quantum tunneling is out of the running for Storms because it was put in
the lattice, where the close-enough groupings of nuclei would require
violations in the laws of thermodynamics.
Inherent and unfolding complexity is the name of the game. It is
anti-Ockham. It turns off everyone, in general, and thus the
uber-concept of a multi-faceted, intertwined GUT is not popular. But
think about hydrogen in general – it is 90+% of the Universe. Can we
really expect it to be simple? Since no single theorist can make a
name for himself everyone seems to focus on a niche, and pretend that
they can cherry pick data from various places, but in the end – the
best answer will become obvious.
And most surprising: much of that correct answer is now hidden in
plain view.
Yes, thank you Jones, I have to agree with you there. I believe it's
all there too. We just have to put on those special glasses to see it!
OK, I got to get busy! My typing is over!
Peace
Ruby, a working woman
Jones
--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org>
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org>
