Dear Jones, I find that your analysis of the book is correct unfortunately for the fiedl and we have only a partial explanation of what has happened and no prediction/instructions for a research strategy having chances to helo researcher to solve the endemic problems of LENR we all know well.
I have criticized the paper for similar weaknesses as those shown by you, when it was only in form of a paper. See please my questions here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/some-questions-regarding-ed-storms-new.html Ed has answered the questions both on my Blog and at CMNS but we could not agree. Ed said he will write a book and perhaps by reading it I will be able to undesrtand and appreciate his New Theory. My objections to it were: - a destructive and practically unmanageable process based on cracking cannot be basis for a commercial technology; - Pd D and transition metals H processes are different and not D +D and H +H, Mpther Nature do not accepts such constraints - Pd D is technologically dead if wet, electrochemical - the LENR+ processes (DGT, Rossi) seems to work outside this theory Mea culpa probably_ I could not understand the concept of hydrotons More important LENR is a multi-, ,multi- process see my Questions. I know for sure- the book is excellent as all publications of Ed, but we still have to wait for a chain of theories explaining LENR. Peter On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Finally finished "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" over the > weekend and find it to be a mixed bag - brilliant in places, but > disappointing in others. There is no "cutting-edge" to be found here, if > that is what you are looking for. I was, and maybe that is my problem. It > can be recommended as a fine historical piece, very well-researched - but > do > not expect much more. > > Here is my main objection to Ed Storms' book from what is admittedly a > minority point of view. It is a historical account of the first twenty > years > which overlooks the importance of new work, and that Ni-H is the commercial > savior of LENR. All of that wonderful prior work with Pd-D, which set the > table for where we are now, is valuable and intuitive, but .... To be > blunt, > when one is lost in time, with a focus on history, then the baggage that > comes with that viewpoint can interfere with accurate understanding of > where > we are going. Palladium cannot really help us in the long run, and the best > hope for deuterium now rests with Mizuno's new work. BTW - Mizuno's > important new work is ignored by Ed and he cherry-pick data from old work > that contradicts the new. That is almost unforgiveable in a book which > promises accurate explanations. > > In short, Storms is only accurate for understanding results which were > prior > to Rossi and to "nano" but then falls flat - insofar as opening up the > future. The book overlooks the most important new developments in LENR, > like > nanotechnology and SPP, or else fails to analyze them properly. I finished > this book wanting much more and thinking that I had already read most of it > anyway. > > In 24 years of accumulated experiment, which includes Mills - the > experimental results are often contradictory, when considered in toto. When > one is looking for commonality, as in this book, a general theme should > emerge. That is where Ed's book fails - it begins with a false assumption > and ends with a theme that points us in the wrong direction. To wit: > > 1) Fusion of deuterium in a Pd matrix or crack strongly appears to be > a > novel kind of gammaless nuclear fusion, with helium or tritium as the ash. > This is where Ed's account is authoritative and helpful. He is an expert > with Pd-D. > > 2) However, deuterium can participate in thermal gain without fusion, > as the new Mizuno work indicates, which work is ignored as are many > important new developments - like Cravens extremely important NI-Week demo. > > 3) Reactions of protons in a metal matrix (no deuterium) strongly > appears to be non-fusion, having almost no indicia of fusion, as in Rossi's > work; but it can be nuclear in the sense of nuclear mass being converted > into energy. Rossi is marginalized. > > 4) Ed does not to believe that the two isotopes, deuterium and protium > can entail completely different modalities for thermal gain - and so he > proceeds to lump Ni-H into a category where it is not well-suited. Thus, > for > the segment of LENR which deals with Ni-H, his book is both wrong and > counterproductive, since it casts the entire sub-field into chaos for the > start by confusing two pathways as one. > > 5) It should be noted, in defense of point 3 that slight transmutation > is seen on rare occasion by a minority of researchers (notably Piantelli), > but it is three orders of magnitude too low to account for excess heat. > When > copper is found with nickel it is in the natural isotope ratio which > statistically proves absolutely that it cannot be formed from nickel. > > In short, this book is authoritative and helpful for understanding the > history of cold fusion, Pd-D and most of the experiments following in the > footsteps of P&F. That is the good part and if this is what you are after, > then do not read-on. > > As for the downside, Storms overlook or marginalizes the fact that Ni-H may > not be related to Pd-D and may not be fusion at all. He emphasizes the few > findings which point to fusion, and fails to even mention contrary > arguments > and weight of evidence. The two isotopes are extraordinarily different and > it makes no sense to lump them into the same modality. The bottom line for > Storms book is that it will bring you up to date to around the year 2010 - > in terms of where the field was then, but fails to move beyond that > limitation. > > In neglecting to emphasize the importance of Ni-H, mention the zero point > field, nanomagnetism (or almost anything related to nanotechnology), giving > half a sentence to surface plasmons, marginalizing Rossi, Cravens, Mizuno, > Mills, and ignoring Ahern, plus - ignoring dozens of other cutting-edge > subjects, "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" should instead > be > called "The History of Cold Fusion in Palladium." > > But as disappointing as it was to me, it was still worth the time, and you > may agree with Ed's perspective anyway, so have at it! > > > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
