Dear Abd,
I agree with your thread of thinking.
However, in the paper I have intentionally not mentioned
that our Sacrosanct Physics is in a state indistinguishable from a Crisis,
There are many similar problems having no genuine theory, or not complete
theory, or two theories that are in part incompatible and the scientists
cannot decide which is the best. Cold Fusion, Cold Fusion has the extra
troubles wsith experiment; the other theoretical weaklings
are usable, repeatable, upscalable, normal. The most proximal example is
probable HTSC high temperature superconductivity. Due to material problems
the applicaations
of HTSC are still limited, in 1986 we thought that HTSC will be very
present in our homes and will dwarf the electricity.
bills. The reality is different.
Your last sentence seems to be explosively true
Who knows what say the best theoreticians- I fear that with our level of
knowledge of today, it is not possible to elaborate an unique perfect
theory of Pd-D LENR/CF. We are not omniscient enough for that. We will have
a multitude
of partial explanation. The problem is to find a theory that is
pragmatically and operationally sufficient.
For Ni/H (actually transition metals/hydrogen Ni is in part a
harbinger it seems be easier, if the theorist considers experimental
reality- better knowable in this case
Peter
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 02:47 PM 10/11/2012, Peter Gluck wrote:
My dear Friends,
I have a special professional relationship with
effectiveness and efficiency and as you know, with LENR.
In my paper:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-**
cold-fusionlenr-research.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-cold-fusionlenr-research.html
**http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-**
cold-fusionlenr-research.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-cold-fusionlenr-research.html
you will find a few ideas about how these can work together.
Well, Peter, palladium deuteride may well be a dead end for energy
production. Tossing billions of research dollars at it makes no sense.
Rather, palladium deuteride needs probably a few million dollars, carefully
spent to investigate and elucidate the mechanism. I'd be astonished if it
took a billion dollars.
Essentially, what is needed is what both U.S. Department of Energy reviews
of the field recommended. Basic research to answer basic questions.
Where the big money will go, then, would be into the design and
engineering of whatever approach can be created once the basic physics and
materials science are understood. That might be nickel-hydrogen, though
Storms seems to think not. Deuterium is still an attractive fuel. It's the
palladium that is crazy expensive, and palladium catalysis that is so
unreliable, so far.
We really won't know where to go until that basic scientific research is
done. We need the physics community to stop pretending that cold fusion
will just go away if they ignore it, to roll up their sleeves and use their
theoretical tools, as well as improved experiments, to figure how what's
actually happening in palladium deuteride to convert deuterium to helium.
(And whatever else is going on in there.)
It's a difficult problem. I wonder if the physicists are up to the
challenge.
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
