[Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, is this possible? If we see physics as a statistical phenomenom, then energy is another word for probability. So, Low Energy reactions are low probability reactions - reactions that dont happen frequently ;-) It is therefore improbable to get energy out of them ;-) From a logical and scientific point of view LENR is a contradiction in itself. The acronym was invented purposefully to avoid the stigma of cold fusion, but it was not made by scientifically and logically thinking people. Cold means low temperature, but it doesnt mean low energy. There can still be high energy in form of tension, pressure or voltage. Therefore LENR is not a good idea. It is very misleading. It is very unscientific. Cold Fusion is a better idea, even if it might be not a correct description. Arent there better words?
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
On 2011-12-16 14:49, Peter Heckert wrote: LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, is this possible? What about LENR - Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions? Personally I Like it more than Low Energy. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
I have noticed that McKubre often uses LANR: Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions. mic 2011/12/16 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com: On 2011-12-16 14:49, Peter Heckert wrote: LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, is this possible? What about LENR - Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions? Personally I Like it more than Low Energy. Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Changing the acronym LENR to 'Lattice Enabled' is an improvement over 'Low Energy'- but CANR can also be altered be more relevant to the mechanics of Ni-H reactions, as best we can understand them: CANR = Casimir (or cavity) Assisted Nucleon Reactions. First, the common thread between deuterium reactions, which tend towards standard nuclear physics, and protium reactions, which do not - is the effect of cavity confinement and its aftermath. Since this kind of confined contact is not purely a Casimir effect, and seldom takes place in a real lattice, we can also call it cavity assisted to acknowledge the differences and similarities. Using nucleon instead of nuclear is another adjustment brought on by the variation away from standard nuclear physics. The term 'nucleon' is at the semantic boundary where particle physics and nuclear physics overlap; and the former emphasizes QM effects far more so than the later. In particular, tunneling, quark statistics and quantum chromodynamics are of fundamental importance to the CANR of protium. I agree with Horace that the WL theory is wrong - so completely wrong that the support of NASA hurts the credibility of NASA. It cannot be correct as it stands now (but the proponents are chameleons and it changes by the week). WL theory focuses on the weak interaction, and fails immediately because ultra cold neutrons are well-known, well studied and bear no relationship to the ULM neutron, which is an invention without even rudimentary evidence. CANR, in this altered definition, focuses on the strong force and the tunneling of protons, which CANNOT fuse with each other exothermically, but which can extract retain some of the strong force mass/energy from a close (tunneling) approach to each other. This energy transfer happens by diminishing the non-quark nucleon mass (pions, gluons, gauge bosons etc) of the proton. This is NOT fusion and is NOT fission, yet it involves nuclear mass redistribution. Obviously it does not depend on the fiction of a virtual neutron. CANR in the guise of Cavity Assisted Nucleon Reactions focuses on QM, and the relativistic effects of close confinement, and the fundamental properties of quarks and nuclear boson which provide the strong interaction. Nucleons are each made of three quarks bound together by the strong interaction - but the actual mass of protons, as we detect it in experiment is an average and is not fixed - with a range in either direction which is amenable to extraction via the strong force diminishment (probably less than one percent is available). For instance the mass of a proton can vary within a narrow range around 938 MeV, and since the three quarks account for a part of that mass - less than half, depending on who you believe, the non-quark mass is substantial to the extent that there is a surplus, some of which is extractable and it shows up as acceleration of two protons from each other when they have approached within the limits of the strong force but cannot bind. Part of the idiocy of the CENR money pit (bogosity chasing bosons) is that they want to spend enormous sums of taxpayer dollars on an imaginary particle when they cannot even quantify known particles to acceptable limits. Jones -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa What about LENR - Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions? Personally I Like it more than Low Energy. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Arent there better words? I have addressed this question here before, from the point of view of linguistics. It does not matter what you call something. People will know what you mean. See Wittgenstein's discussion of meaning: Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use. This is the basis for Google's translation tools, which work better than most linguists predicted was possible. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/10/google_translate_will_google_s_computers_understand_languages_be.html Terminology is often inaccurate and usually a generation behind. We often pick a word for something new that describes the older object better than the new one. Because there isn't a word for the new thing. For example: A collection of files in a computer is called a folder, even though it does not fold. It is represented by a manila folder icon, even though many people have never seen an actual folder. My daughter visited my office years ago, saw a folder, and said, ah, so *that's* what the thing on the screen is. Ae call a semiconductor replacement for a hard disk a solid state disk even though: It isn't disk shaped. A hard disk is in the solid state too. In fission reactors, they talk about burning the fuel, even though combustion does not occur. That does not matter. No one is confused by the term, any more than they are by the expression burn rate to describe the use of start-up funds in venture capital. No one thinks the people starting a company are actually igniting piles of cash money . . . although I suppose they might have at the height of the dot-com boom. In scientific disciplines, terminology is more likely to be adjusted to reflect underlying physical reality than in other disciplines. But it often starts out wrong, or drifts into being wrong as new discoveries are made or technology changes, yet it remains in use. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
My children can buy a new MP3 album from iTunes. If they missed something on TV, they can pause the DVR and rewind. The words may eventually be elimanated, but the next generation is adopting them without care of origin. Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:43:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view. From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Arent there better words? I have addressed this question here before, from the point of view of linguistics. It does not matter what you call something. People will know what you mean. See Wittgenstein's discussion of meaning: Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use. This is the basis for Google's translation tools, which work better than most linguists predicted was possible. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/10/google_translate_will_google_s_computers_understand_languages_be.html Terminology is often inaccurate and usually a generation behind. We often pick a word for something new that describes the older object better than the new one. Because there isn't a word for the new thing. For example: A collection of files in a computer is called a folder, even though it does not fold. It is represented by a manila folder icon, even though many people have never seen an actual folder. My daughter visited my office years ago, saw a folder, and said, ah, so that's what the thing on the screen is. Ae call a semiconductor replacement for a hard disk a solid state disk even though: It isn't disk shaped. A hard disk is in the solid state too. In fission reactors, they talk about burning the fuel, even though combustion does not occur. That does not matter. No one is confused by the term, any more than they are by the expression burn rate to describe the use of start-up funds in venture capital. No one thinks the people starting a company are actually igniting piles of cash money . . . although I suppose they might have at the height of the dot-com boom. In scientific disciplines, terminology is more likely to be adjusted to reflect underlying physical reality than in other disciplines. But it often starts out wrong, or drifts into being wrong as new discoveries are made or technology changes, yet it remains in use. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
From Jed: ... Terminology is often inaccurate and usually a generation behind. We often pick a word for something new that describes the older object better than the new one. Because there isn't a word for the new thing. ... This is why many (myself included) have felt that recent attempts, such as those launched from the Krivit and the Widom Larsen camp, in attempts to cast dispersions on the phrase cold fusion, and most particularly the FUSION word in cold fusion have been petty, counterproductive, and in my opinion, politically motivated. It strikes me as nothing more than a ideological motivated product placement war. Anyone who has studied the field for the past 2 decades knows the CF phrase is nothing more than a placeholder. Meanwhile, everyone else who hasn't studied the field will more likely end up becoming confused. Sometimes, I find myself speculating that THAT is precisely what Krivit and WL hope will happen. It strikes me as an attempt to conquer and divide the ignorant by getting them into their ideological camp, before they know any better. I suspect such tactics will not work. The irony is the fact that even after the process is better understood, it is likely that the cold fusion phrase will continue to be used to describe the process, as perceived within in the poplar culture. It will linger on in the vocabulary for decades, if not longer. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
From Robert: The words may eventually be elimanated, but the next generation is adopting them without care of origin. But our generation is just as guilty of committing the same type of crimes. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
I regard efforts to change the name cold fusion as attempts to create a euphemism. Euphemisms never work. Whatever bothers people about the old word soon attaches to the new word, so you end up generating word after word. For example: toilet, bathroom, men's room, restroom, etc. Here is what I wrote about this, in my review of Beaudette's book: Beaudette thinks the early history of cold fusion soured the field and shaped events. He regrets the cold fusion got off on the wrong foot with the University of Utah press conference. He thinks the name cold fusion is a misnomer which has confused the issue. Storms and others have coined new names like LENR partly to escape from the stigma of the original one. A new name would be a euphemism. The stigma associated with the original word will soon attach to the new one. The 1989 introduction could have been done with more finesse, but I doubt it would have made much difference. Beaudette knows that some level of controversy was unavoidable: Revolutions . . . always hit hard and they hurt. The notion that somehow -- if only things were handled better -- the deep divisions could have been avoided is not a realistic sentiment. Beaudette does not discuss what I consider the key factor in generating and prolonging the conflict: money. I did not think this originally, but Szpak, Hagelstein and others with long experience in academic science convinced me that is the key issue. The only issue, really. Scientists are not opposed to new ideas any more than programmers or restaurant owners are. The only thing they care about is how the new idea affects their pocketbook. People often say that scientists are conservative and they oppose ideas that appear to violate theory. As far as I can tell, the only people who get upset about a theory are those who specialize in that particular theory. The others do not care. When you ask a scientist about a theory in some other branch he likely to say 'that is a bunch of ad hoc guesses cobbled together, and you can't take theory seriously anyway.' Asked about his own theory and he will tell you it is unquestionably true. Anyway, if you come up with a few million dollars in grant money, 99% of scientists will instantly throw away whatever beliefs and theories they subscribe to, and rally around whatever cockamamie research topic you have come up with. When cold fusion was first announced, Tom Passell of EPRI says that many scientists publicly denounced it, while in private they were frantically applying to EPRI for research grants to study it. They did not actually oppose it. Probably they had no strong feeling either way. There were only denouncing it to keep others from applying for a grant. It was a ploy. In my experience, academic scientists tend to be unethical, backbiting scoundrels, like stockbrokers. They claim they are held accountable by peer-review and so on but that is not true. They can make gross errors and no one catches them or even cares. Plagiarism is endemic. Peer review and funding mechanisms would be considered a gross violation of antitrust laws in any other line of work. Imagine how things would be if you let IBM decide what products a startup company will be allowed to develop! Academic institutions and practices encourage irresponsibility and reward bad actors. People such as farmers and programmers have to produce real world results. That tends to keep them more honest. It is no wonder science has been stagnating for decades, as Chris Tinsley pointed out. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Euphemisms never work. Whatever bothers people about the old word soon attaches to the new word, so you end up generating word after word. For example: toilet, bathroom, men's room, restroom, etc. There is a huge industry of focus-group research that would vehemently disagree. Changing terminologies can entirely restructure a debate, and affect changes in perception: Global warming to climate change? Pro-choice to women's health? Gay marriage to marriage equality? Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:46:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view. From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I regard efforts to change the name cold fusion as attempts to create a euphemism. Euphemisms never work. Whatever bothers people about the old word soon attaches to the new word, so you end up generating word after word. For example: toilet, bathroom, men's room, restroom, etc. Here is what I wrote about this, in my review of Beaudette's book: Beaudette thinks the early history of cold fusion soured the field and shaped events. He regrets the cold fusion got off on the wrong foot with the University of Utah press conference. He thinks the name cold fusion is a misnomer which has confused the issue. Storms and others have coined new names like LENR partly to escape from the stigma of the original one. A new name would be a euphemism. The stigma associated with the original word will soon attach to the new one. The 1989 introduction could have been done with more finesse, but I doubt it would have made much difference. Beaudette knows that some level of controversy was unavoidable: Revolutions . . . always hit hard and they hurt. The notion that somehow -- if only things were handled better -- the deep divisions could have been avoided is not a realistic sentiment. Beaudette does not discuss what I consider the key factor in generating and prolonging the conflict: money. I did not think this originally, but Szpak, Hagelstein and others with long experience in academic science convinced me that is the key issue. The only issue, really. Scientists are not opposed to new ideas any more than programmers or restaurant owners are. The only thing they care about is how the new idea affects their pocketbook. People often say that scientists are conservative and they oppose ideas that appear to violate theory. As far as I can tell, the only people who get upset about a theory are those who specialize in that particular theory. The others do not care. When you ask a scientist about a theory in some other branch he likely to say 'that is a bunch of ad hoc guesses cobbled together, and you can't take theory seriously anyway.' Asked about his own theory and he will tell you it is unquestionably true. Anyway, if you come up with a few million dollars in grant money, 99% of scientists will instantly throw away whatever beliefs and theories they subscribe to, and rally around whatever cockamamie research topic you have come up with. When cold fusion was first announced, Tom Passell of EPRI says that many scientists publicly denounced it, while in private they were frantically applying to EPRI for research grants to study it. They did not actually oppose it. Probably they had no strong feeling either way. There were only denouncing it to keep others from applying for a grant. It was a ploy. In my experience, academic scientists tend to be unethical, backbiting scoundrels, like stockbrokers. They claim they are held accountable by peer-review and so on but that is not true. They can make gross errors and no one catches them or even cares. Plagiarism is endemic. Peer review and funding mechanisms would be considered a gross violation of antitrust laws in any other line of work. Imagine how things would be if you let IBM decide what products a startup company will be allowed to develop! Academic institutions and practices encourage irresponsibility and reward bad actors. People such as farmers and programmers have to produce real world results. That tends to keep them more honest. It is no wonder science has been stagnating for decades, as Chris Tinsley pointed out. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Global warming to climate change? I believe that was a technical adjustment to make the term more accurate. Not a euphemism. CO2 causes both warming and cooling, and also droughts and other effects. It is not limited to warming. This change did not do what you suggest. It did not change perception. The topic is as controversial as it ever was. Pro-choice to women's health? Gay marriage to marriage equality? These topics are also still politicized. They are still controversial. Changing the name did not help. You have illustrated why euphemisms do not work. Actually, euphemism usually means the word is intended to avoid embarrassment or social awkwardness. Victorians invented words for sex, and we invent words for death. There is probably some other word for changing the name to avoid controversy. Not sure what . . . The New Scientist referred to the use of new hydrogen energy meaning cold fusion as a euphemism. That was the Japanese NEDO agency's word. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
From Robert: There is a huge industry of focus-group research that would vehemently disagree. Changing terminologies can entirely restructure a debate, and affect changes in perception: Global warming to climate change? Pro-choice to women's health? Gay marriage to marriage equality? In all three examples you cite I personally find it interesting that the politically correct replacement phrase being championed strikes me as being far less descriptive than the original phrase. There is considerable evidence that indicates that in many cases the objective of these focus groups was to water down, or obfuscate, the issues being championed out of the original phrase. But getting back to cold fusion, the question is whether someone (or some group) is attempting to water down the phrase cold fusion, such as by calling it a nuclear effect. In my view it is debatable whether such efforts will net them an advantage on the political front. I think not. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
He who controls the language controls the argument. The examples I'd provided were all to demonstrate the utility of changing the terminology. You will not immediately remove stigma, but can restructure the entire nature of the dispute. The change in name can have the largest effect on those new to the fray. So, if the Ni-H interaction renamed: Low-Impact Quantum Energy LIQE (pronounced:Like) Who could oppose it. I firmly support Low Impact Quantum Energy. I can see the campaign buttons now, I LIKE LIQE! Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:50:31 -0600 Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view. From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From Robert: There is a huge industry of focus-group research that would vehemently disagree. Changing terminologies can entirely restructure a debate, and affect changes in perception: Global warming to climate change? Pro-choice to women's health? Gay marriage to marriage equality? In all three examples you cite I personally find it interesting that the politically correct replacement phrase being championed strikes me as being far less descriptive than the original phrase. There is considerable evidence that indicates that in many cases the objective of these focus groups was to water down, or obfuscate, the issues being championed out of the original phrase. But getting back to cold fusion, the question is whether someone (or some group) is attempting to water down the phrase cold fusion, such as by calling it a nuclear effect. In my view it is debatable whether such efforts will net them an advantage on the political front. I think not. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: In all three examples you cite I personally find it interesting that the politically correct replacement phrase being championed strikes me as being far less descriptive than the original phrase. I disagree about climate change. That is a better description. I think it is helpful. It educates the public.It helps correct the notion that CO2 only produces higher temperatures, and not more extreme weather including colder temperatures. I doubt that LENR or the other proposed replacements for cold fusion would enlighten the public or correct misinformation. Even if cold fusion succeeds, I do not think the public will ever know or care what cold fusion is at the theoretical level. The name will not matter. For that matter, most people do not understand that fire involves oxygen, but fission does not. People generally are ignorant. They are as ignorant in Japan as in the U.S. Ordinary folks know only a little more about physics than they did in 1600. They have far less practical hands-on knowledge, because modern life is so divorced from nature. People have always have been ignorant and they always will be. This seldom matters. The only time it bothers me is when people try to replace biology with creationism in public schools. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: He who controls the language controls the argument. No one controls language. The French Academy wishes it did, but it does not. This is one of the fundamentals of linguistics. The examples I'd provided were all to demonstrate the utility of changing the terminology. You will not immediately remove stigma, but can restructure the entire nature of the dispute. But it did not work! The nature of the dispute has not been changed. Not for climate change, or abortion, or gay marriage. Opposition is as strong as it ever was. Why do you say this has been effective, when it has not? You are right that these changes were made in an effort to influence the agenda. They failed. The changes did not even take. Most people still call it global warming. Opponents do. As I said, no one controls language. At least, no one has controlled it up to now. Perhaps . . . Google does. (Cue ominous music.) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism Regarding Google's power, see The Googling series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPgV6-gnQaE - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Robert sez: He who controls the language controls the argument. The examples I'd provided were all to demonstrate the utility of changing the terminology. You will not immediately remove stigma, but can restructure the entire nature of the dispute. The change in name can have the largest effect on those new to the fray. So, if the Ni-H interaction renamed: Low-Impact Quantum Energy LIQE (pronounced:Like) Who could oppose it. I agree, especially about the part about newcomers. I firmly support Low Impact Quantum Energy. I can see the campaign buttons now, I LIKE LIQE! Stop while you still can. You are dating yourself! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
