Yes, it is unfortunate for the field, Peter.
However, it should be acknowledged that no one in LENR has done more than to further the field than Storms. And no one in LENR is more knowledgeable, but the bottom line is that “none of us is as smart as all of us,” and if Storms is wrong about important details related to the Ni-H arena, based on his long history with Pd-D - then we should not blindly follow in the wrong direction, simply because of that earlier success and unsurpassed reputation. This should be science – not politics. And time is of the essence. Almost all of the great scientists have been wrong about details of emerging technology, late in their careers. Not to mention that Ed Storms may yet be proved to be correct - to the embarrassment of critics. But if so, it will be based on reliable data and not past accomplishment - and that data does not seem to support his view now. I’ll be first in line for a ceremonial hari-kari if data shows up of protons fusing to deuterium in metal cracks. Peter may decline to be second :-) but an apology will suffice. Despite his expertise, or perhaps because of it - Storms appears to be misguided about Pd-D being relevant for Ni-H. In the opinion of many, there are better explanations, and they should be heard without the observers publishing their own book. That is what forums are designed for. There is no way to be supportive of a book that marginalizes all three of the best remaining hopes for commercialization of LENR – Rossi, Mizuno, and Mills, and that is the problem in a nutshell. Therefore and again, if anyone can indeed show evidence of this kind of fusion “data rules”. We cannot go beyond the hard facts and the data available, and as of mid July 2014 there appears to be no meaningful probability that fusion of protons into deuterium can be involved in any of the best experimental work being done. That reaction of protons fusing to deuterium is a cornerstone which Ed has chosen to build on for Ni-H, so all we can do for now is disagree - and wait for better data. From: Peter Gluck 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
