Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: Ye gods, man. Calm down. >
I am calm. If you think I am exited you are projecting. This cognitive dissonance on your side. I am calm because I have been writing this sort of thing for decades; I can do it in my sleep. Also because I used to teach. I am quite used to dealing with students who do not do their homework. > Er, I didn't. I answered Peter's question. > Yes, but you answered it incorrectly. You failed to note that many important discoveries were acknowledged before anyone could explain them, such as airplanes and penicillin. Let me state, once again, my understanding: > Below you have completely revised and restated your remarks. This is nothing like what you asserted before. > > 1. There are phenomena that people call CF or LENR or whatever. > Right. > 2. No one yet has a theory about these phenomena that has been tested. > No theory is generally accepted. > 3. Whatever these phenomena are, they are apparently not explainable by > conventional physics. > That remains to be seen. Many experts such as Hagelstein say it can be explained by conventional physics. 4. The phenomena are hard to control. > Correct. Although considerable progress has been made in control. > 5. Despite many claims, as far as is known, the phenomena have not been > turned into a useful technology. > There are not "many claims" of useful technology. No one has claimed this except perhaps Rossi. No researcher has said the phenomena have been turned into useful technology, or can be at this stage. They, and I, say that it has achieved most of the performance levels necessary for a practical device, such as temperature, power density, stability, longevity and a good input to output ratio. I also say it is far more practical than a Tokamak or "clean coal" -- a statement you have repeatedly ignored or misunderstood. On one hand we have a $100,000 experiment that produces 100 W of steady heat for 3 months. That was done a dozen times at Toyota. On the other hand we have $1 billion reactor that produced 10 MW for less than a second while it self-destructed. Which sounds more practical to you? Do you really have difficulty judging which is closer to becoming a useful source of energy? > What's wrong about any of that? > Nothing, but that is not at all what you claimed previously. Let's review a few of your statements: "So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... " Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times at high s/n ratios in hundreds of major laboratories, and described in peer-reviewed journals. To call this a "will-o-the-wisp" phenomenon is a grotesque distortion of the facts. "There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises." The claims have been verified as well as any experimental claim can be. The s/n ratio is high. There are no overdue promises. No one has promised anything. We have only pointed out what the data proves: that with control this could become a practical source of energy. "I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested." You have no reason to ask for a theory. No theory is needed at this stage to confirm the results. Theory is irrelevant. You and others have been demanding a theory and using the lack of theory as a reason to belittle, ignore, or disbelieve the results. That violates the scientific method. "I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. "Will-o-the-wisp" implies "unconvincing." The theory is missing but not necessary. Tritium and other evidence tells us what is going on perfectly well without a theory. "Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations." . . . "Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory?" This is experimental science. It consists of observations. Theories come later. "Great. When can I heat my house with one? That's what I'm getting at: Practical application." This is a political question. Practical applications can only come after the academic politics are overcome and funding is made available. I cannot predict when that might happen. Can you? You probably know more about about politics than I do, so you can answer this question better than I can. Theory is not relevant to practical applications. You can heat your house, fly an airplane or use penicillin even when you have no theory of combustion, fluid dynamics, or antibiotics. > And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... he originally > asked "when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and > 1913 Editions]?" My answer was "When there is a testable theory or a > demonstrably practical device." > And, as I said, this answer is wrong. You have not studied history. The airplane, the computer and many other devices were celebrated long before they became practical. The Wright brothers machines until 1912 were not practical in any sense. They killed most of their pilots. ENIAC was only "practical" in the context of the WWII emergency. It would never have been constructed in normal times. - Jed
