Dave, let me explain my situation more clearly. I studied the effect
for 23 years, have done hundreds of experiments, and from this
information arrive at a model that shows how all the observations are
related though the same mechanism. This mechanism must occur in
cracks. So, I design an experiment to create cracks on purpose. As a
result, 4 samples make radiation that can only result from a nuclear
reaction - problem solved. But, I attempt to repeat the success and
fail. The radiation is real, the cracks are real, and the idea is
consistent with all other behavior.
So why is the effect not replicated? If the theory is correct, the
cracks I'm now making are not the right size. If the theory is wrong,
I have no idea why the experiment did not work again. If I had no
theory, I would not have even tried to make cracks. CF is too complex
to just try any idea that comes to mind because the result cannot be
interpreted without a model.
Let's assume NASA gets an effect from one of their small samples. Did
this result because W-L is correct, which is what they will assume, or
did it result because unknown to them the proper cracks were made.
You see, the next experiment will depend on which theory is believed.
If they believe W-L, they will look for neutrons. If they believe me
they will look for cracks. If they are smart, they will look for both,
but I'm not confident this will happen.
On Feb 16, 2013, at 9:53 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, I suspect that what you describe is a very common occurrence in
the experimental science world. We all want some form of support
for the process that we use to solve problems, but there are many
times that something unexpected shows up which then leads us in an
entirely different direction. I know from my experience that I
generally begin solving a complex problem by making a series of
assumptions based upon my model of the system. As I seek evidence
to support the original assumptions I often find unusual behavior
that is not consistent with my model.
If I pursue the new leads that arise from inconsistencies,
additional ones will occur that force me to adjust my original model
of the thing, whatever it is. This procedure allows a researcher or
problem solver to modify their understanding of the device as they
link all the pieces of evidence together. A person must be capable
of realizing that what they originally think is important might not
turn out to be in the final conclusion and that is pretty much where
we are in LENR today.
No one can prove that their pet theory is correct at this time and
there are a multitude of ideas in contention. The ultimate
conclusion may not even be currently up for review , so it is a wise
idea for us to keep our minds open to new concepts. Many of us
question the W&L theory, but it does have its supporters in high
places. Perhaps they have lost touch with reality, but there is a
tiny chance that we are the ones that need to open our minds and eyes.
An example of the flow of problem solving is immediately available
in the form of the time domain program I just developed that does a
remarkable job of matching the behavior of MFMP Celani cell
temperature response with time. I started the analysis by noticing
that the temperature versus time behavior appeared to follow an
exponential relationship. This was soon found to be over simplified
as I was expecting. One small change in ideas followed the next as
I reviewed the errors until I realized how to construct the non
linear differential equation that explained the system behavior.
Then I came to the realization that my curve had the correct shape
but was not fitting the data with time as I had hoped. A bright
idea hit me that the glass added a delay process as the heat
conducted toward the outer surface and the design was completed. I
left out a great deal of pain and discovery in this history lesson,
but the general idea is that what I ultimately came up with was
quite a bit removed from where it began.
Calibration of a calorimeter is well know and very simple. I have not
been following the effort well enough to know if the rules have been
followed. Nevertheless, if the level of power that Celani claimed was
produced, there should be no doubt. As a result, we are in an
ambiguous situation. Is the calorimeter flawed or is the sample dead?
I suspect we will never know. People will keep looking for heat until
they get bored or run out of money. Unfortunately, a wire of this
kind is doomed to failure because, according to my theory, the
required crack structure will change as the wire is handled and used.
This form of material is not stable and will always fail eventually,
hopefully not before some excess is detected with a reliable
calorimeter.
Ed
My best guess is that some of the concepts being applied in our
attempt to explain LENR behavior are applicable, but many will not
fit into the final model very well. The guys at NASA are attempting
a shot gun type of approach. No one knows whether or not unusual
behavior will be demonstrated at this time, but I would not be
surprised. If they are knowledgeable enough and something new comes
to light, we might all get a welcome gift. I have my fingers
crossed that at least one of the many cells that they are testing
will not match our expectations.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 9:25 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
But Eric, this is not how experimental studies work. Generally
people see what they look for. For example, Swartz has a model he
uses to explain what he see and he explains the behavior only in
this way. Fleischmann had a model based on Preparata that provided
his guidance, which lead to an approach for doing experiments that
was based only on the model. I suffer from the same reliance on my
model. As a result, no one changes their mind because Nature always
supports the model being used. Therefore, it is important to start a
study using a model close to the correct one. People who say they
will simply do the study and see what happens are not telling the
truth. This is not a simple physics problem that has a clear
answer. The answer will not be clear. The result will be complex
and will make no sense without a model being applied. For example,
a person will see a little heat. He will run the experiment again
using what appears to be the same material and see nothing. Was the
first result error or was the material used the second time not
exactly the same as the first time? How do you decide? At this
point a model is applied. Which model you use determines what you do
next.
Ed
On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson
<dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
I am not sure anyone has a good answer to your question Ed. I do
not care what theory they are operating upon at the moment as long
as they keep plugging away.
That's right -- it should be like Newton's method for finding the
roots of a real-valued function. You pick some starting point --
anywhere, really, as long as it is not too far afield -- and then
you plug away, Edisonian-like, gradually narrowing down the
possibilities without being dogmatic about what has been set aside,
since new information may come to light that causes one to
reevaluate previous evidence. In this context I don't see much use
for hewing to a specific theory when approaching a very challenging
problem. Anything is beloved that delivers, even heavy electrons. ;)
Eric
