Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
eing 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 To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms 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 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
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
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. 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 To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms 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 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 -- an
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 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
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
I've just seem a TV document on Marie Curie, and really nothing will change. people have the imagination that things get more tolerant, but it is always the same, as explain nicolas taleb in anti-fragile... rewriting the history of LENR will be done afterward, making physicist look competent. 2013/2/16 Eric Walker > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > If NASA fails, this will be a black mark. Failure is not treated the same >> way in LENR as it is in normal science. Beside, anyone who has studied the >> theory must wonder about the competence at NASA. >> > > Honestly, if LENR gets off the ground and gains mainstream acceptance, I > see the possibility of it helping to influence the culture of physics in a > new, more tolerant direction. Who knows. The current mode of intolerance > and haughtiness is not flattering for physics. I think it is ironic in > this light that the field can also go in the other direction, towards any > number of possibly unfalsifiable avenues of investigation in string theory > and multiple universes and so on. Perhaps it is just because these areas > of investigation cannot easily be falsified that some physicists are able > to carve out a respectable niche there. > > Most physicists will wonder about the competence at NASA if they pursue > any LENR theory. It is only a subset of LENR people that wonder about the > competence of NASA's pursuing W-L. I think NASA should have > the latitude to keep on staff a few people who entertain oddball ideas; > such people can still end up coming up with interesting and useful > innovations. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: If NASA fails, this will be a black mark. Failure is not treated the same > way in LENR as it is in normal science. Beside, anyone who has studied the > theory must wonder about the competence at NASA. > Honestly, if LENR gets off the ground and gains mainstream acceptance, I see the possibility of it helping to influence the culture of physics in a new, more tolerant direction. Who knows. The current mode of intolerance and haughtiness is not flattering for physics. I think it is ironic in this light that the field can also go in the other direction, towards any number of possibly unfalsifiable avenues of investigation in string theory and multiple universes and so on. Perhaps it is just because these areas of investigation cannot easily be falsified that some physicists are able to carve out a respectable niche there. Most physicists will wonder about the competence at NASA if they pursue any LENR theory. It is only a subset of LENR people that wonder about the competence of NASA's pursuing W-L. I think NASA should have the latitude to keep on staff a few people who entertain oddball ideas; such people can still end up coming up with interesting and useful innovations. Eric
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson 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
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
Nasa like so many others suffers from theory fixation. They fail to look at other systems for behavior that closely resembles what happens in LENR to gain insight into the physical mechanisms that underpin both systems. It is actually these universal mechanisms that are important and not the theories that they inspire. Nasa needs to fill their conceptual tool bag with these mechanisms to properly apply them to the LENR puzzle. Certain preconceptions block advancement of a valid theory. In the case of Nasa, it is the need to generate neutrons to allow penetration of the nucleus. There are other ways that the coulomb barrier can be overcome. Another concept that hangs people up is the conditions under which a condensate can form. When shown an experiment that shows how a condensate can be form at extreme temperatures, this concept should be included in the LENR tool kit. It is not a question of imagination, but applying experimentally demonstrated concepts in appropriate ways to describe similar behavior that also appears in LENR. This is what you must mean by plugging away; constantly looking at your conceptual toolkit to see the best ways and the appropriate order in which they can be applied to solve the LENR puzzle. We all need to be supple of theory in this process of explanation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson 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. One day we might be able to set them straight, but that > will not happen if they give up too soon. Encourage them in any way that > you can for now. > > Dave > > > -Original Message- > From: Edmund Storms > To: vortex-l > Cc: Edmund Storms > Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:08 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny > > I added the following comment: > > The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space > should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored. > This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well > explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would > seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better > consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a > universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question? > > Ed > On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: > > > > > Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions > > > > The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview > > with > > Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley > > Research > > Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” > > at > > NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear > > power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. > > > > http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/ > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
The problem Dave is that the theory determines the results. The design of the apparatus and the expected behavior are all determined by the theory. If NASA fails, this will be a black mark. Failure is not treated the same way in LENR as it is in normal science. Beside, anyone who has studied the theory must wonder about the competence at NASA. Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:21 PM, David Roberson 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. One day we might be able to set them straight, but that will not happen if they give up too soon. Encourage them in any way that you can for now. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny I added the following comment: The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored. This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: > > Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions > > The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview > with > Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley > Research > Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” > at > NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear > power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. > > http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/ > >
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
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. One day we might be able to set them straight, but that will not happen if they give up too soon. Encourage them in any way that you can for now. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny I added the following comment: The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored. This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: > > Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions > > The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview > with > Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley > Research > Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” > at > NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear > power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. > > http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/ > >
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
I consider it wonderful that these guys are doing this research. How are they able to be so public and out of reach of the major detractors? Can we expect the repercussions to come up soon? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny If you look at that chip that Zawodny held up for our examination, you will see 48 different nano-photonic configurations of the test material, probably carbon nanotubes. Nasa is on the right track. They need to switch the nanotubes to nickel nanowire completely covering uniform micro-particles. Because resonant temperature is so important, heat the micro-particles to the black body resonance temperature that corresponds to the uniform diameter of the micro-particles. To get an improved reaction rate, Nasa should boost the free electron surface electron density by either using thermionic material like potassium or alternatively, like DGT, use spark discharge. The best approach is to use both of these surface electron boosting techniques on the micro-particles. If we follow the recipe closely, LENR can be so simple. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, wrote: Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
I added the following comment: The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored. This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/
Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny
If you look at that chip that Zawodny held up for our examination, you will see 48 different nano-photonic configurations of the test material, probably carbon nanotubes. Nasa is on the right track. They need to switch the nanotubes to nickel nanowire completely covering uniform micro-particles. Because resonant temperature is so important, heat the micro-particles to the black body resonance temperature that corresponds to the uniform diameter of the micro-particles. To get an improved reaction rate, Nasa should boost the free electron surface electron density by either using thermionic material like potassium or alternatively, like DGT, use spark discharge. The best approach is to use both of these surface electron boosting techniques on the micro-particles. If we follow the recipe closely, LENR can be so simple. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, wrote: > > Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions > > The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with > Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research > Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” at > NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear > power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. > > > http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/ > > >
