I believe that the P&F effect is caused by arc discharge and cavitation. The PdD fusion theories are all totally and uniformly wrong. Such an revolutionary idea cannot even be considered as serious because of all the investments in ego that these current invalid PdD theories involve. This rejection of current P&F theory is a bridge too far. Progress in this area must wait until NiH is better understood and can serve as theoretical support for a valid PdD theory.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > I understand that and I agree with you Axil. Although I think it would > benefit to bring forward the similarities rather than what is impossible as > it does not comply with what I myself think. If one already have all the > answers, then it is meaningless to argue about what is wrong in others > ideas. If there is doubt I think acceptance of other ideas is good and then > find out if perhaps their is something wrong with why those two theories > cannot coexist. If you solve the reaon why they may not coexist it is my > believe that you either find out one IS wrong or the reason why they cannot > coexist is wrong. > Many ideas is just fine with me. I might have expressed myself poorly so > thanks for letting me explain. > On Aug 6, 2014 12:44 PM, "Axil Axil" <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> *The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my >> opinion. It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by >> a wide group of scientists.* >> >> Whenever there is a mystery in science, many theories are proposed to >> explain that mystery. Take for an example dark matter, there are hundreds >> of theories that have been put forth to explain that mystery. There is even >> a dozen categories in which these theories can be grouped. >> >> The debate that weighs each new piece of evidence against all those >> theories is very healthy. Over time, and with many iterations, one of the >> many will pull away in the theory sweepstakes. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> >> wrote: >> >>> OK. Kevin, you obviously know more about physics than about >>> management/leadership. We had a talk about my subject not long ago. It did >>> not go very well. I will take my chances in an area I am poorly prepared. >>> Reason I try is because I am confused. I haave some friends who told me >>> that state of matter is not very accurate. Their opinion is that it is an >>> infinite number of states. >>> First of all help me understand what is more accurate. >>> If my friends are correct, then We do not need o look for any new >>> states. Maybe it is worth finding out more about states of matter for >>> reasons beyond LENR and maybe to fully undrstand LENR an understanding of >>> more hard to describe/understand states is required. >>> The whole discussion about different theories is way too adament in my >>> opinion. It seems like if evry theory is having problems to be accepted by >>> a wide group of scientists. I think a more humble aproach where taking >>> pieces from all theories would propel the search for a solution forward >>> much faster than the attempt to disqualify othe theories while lifting ones >>> own up to theology level.. What I say is that there might be many forms of >>> LENR. They might be depending on which state of matter they are working >>> in. So why not take the thoughts from Ed Storms, Dr. Mills, W&L, Axil, >>> Jones, etc. and search for the common denominators instead of the reason >>> one is better? >>> On Aug 5, 2014 10:38 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> If you look at the lower right hand diagram on that page, there are >>>> only 4 sates of matter (traditionally): solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. >>>> Trying to shoehorn LENR theories into these 4 states so far has proven >>>> fruitless, although plasma is a state of matter that I simply do not >>>> understand. >>>> >>>> Is an arc a plasma? My readings tell me: sometimes. >>>> >>>> I am confident the final explanation of LENR is going to come from one >>>> of these obstinate states of matter (or perhaps 2 of them). >>>> >>>> Like relativity theory, it will seem obvious, simple, and yet >>>> mind-numbingly complex all at the same time. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Currently we only have 5 known states of matter: >>>>> >>>>> Solid >>>>> Liquid >>>>> >>>>> Gas >>>>> >>>>> Plasma >>>>> >>>>> Bose-Einstein Condensate >>>>> >>>>> It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would >>>>> occur as the newest & least understood state of matter….Especially >>>>> when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special >>>>> case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. … Are there other states of >>>>> matter being postulated at this point? Some of the Zero Point >>>>> Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in >>>>> mainstream physics. >>>>> >>>>> Interesting point for LENR. One problem is that matter can be partly >>>>> or wholly in another dimension. In fact there is some evidence that >>>>> electrons exist partly in another dimension. If we limit the candidates to >>>>> macro reality (no subatomic species like pentaquarks etc.) then here are a >>>>> few more. >>>>> >>>>> Dark matter – which can be the same as ZPE, Aether >>>>> >>>>> Neutron matter – the stuff of neutron stars >>>>> >>>>> PS… after starting this list, it occurred to me that Wiki most likely >>>>> already has such a list, and indeed it can be found here >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>
