Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

> You take yourself awfully serious Jed > I don't. I just happen to know a great deal about the Wright brothers. > That plus a whole bunch of other stuff. That is an ASTOUNDING > accomplishment. Imagine understanding a propeller to that extent before > anyone, anywhere in the world made a r

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II OK, you take your knowledge about the Wright brothers very seriously Jed. On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: ChemE Stewart wrote: Poor propeller design theory Nope. Good theory, bad craftsmanship

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

OK, you take your knowledge about the Wright brothers very seriously Jed. On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: > ChemE Stewart 'cheme...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > Poor propeller design theory > > > Nope. Good theory, bad craftsmanship. They tried to save some time and > money by

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

ChemE Stewart wrote: Poor propeller design theory Nope. Good theory, bad craftsmanship. They tried to save some time and money by repairing a damaged propeller. The Wrights were superb craftsmen. I guess in this case they were too confident in their own ability to fix things. You take yourse

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their > patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along. > O'Malley is making unfounded assumptions. Gibbs never wrote or implied any such thing. [m]

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Mark Gibbs mailto:mgi...@gibbs.com>> wrote: Exactly. Once again, Rothwell misses the point. The issue here is not about science, it's about technology and making something that works because the original question was about what would make LENR recognized. I hope I have made it clear

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Poor propeller design theory You take yourself awfully serious Jed On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> Multiple fail-safe devices in a high pressure call all failed at once, in >> a terrible coincidence. >> > > Meant "high pressure CELL." See p. 139: > > http:/

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

I wrote: > Multiple fail-safe devices in a high pressure call all failed at once, in > a terrible coincidence. > Meant "high pressure CELL." See p. 139: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IkegamiHthirdinter.pdf - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

*F&P produced 294 MJ of excess energy at 101 W.* Regarding: *Demonstrate scientifically, with great precision and solid certainty that the Fleischmann Pons Effect has a nuclear nature.* It is unfortunate the Fleischmann Pons Effect was the first instance of the LENR reaction’s manifestation. I

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Incomplete theory, less than optimum results... It had only been five years since Orville and Wilbur Wright made their famous flight at Kitty Hawk. By 1908, the Wright brothers were traveling across the United States and Europe in

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

ChemE Stewart wrote: Incomplete theory, less than optimum results... > > . . . > > Everything went well until that fateful day in September that began with a > cheering crowd of 2,000 and ended with pilot Orville Wright severely > injured and passenger Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge dead. > That

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > The Wright Brothers had a theory - it was called the theory of lift. >> > ***No, they did not. The theories of lift came in the 1920's, well after > airplanes had been flying and doing their stuff. > Correct. > They were the first to understand this process, which

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > People seem to be missing the essential issue here. A theory gives > information about a process or phenomenon that is required to make it > happen on demand. > ***Has your theory brought LENR to this point? > The Wright Brothers had a the

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Mark Gibbs wrote: > > Exactly. Once again, Rothwell misses the point. The issue here is not > about science, it's about technology and making something that works > because the original question was about what would make LENR recognized. > Gibbs misses the point. We cannot wave a magic wand and

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Edmund Storms wrote: People seem to be missing the essential issue here. A theory gives > information about a process or phenomenon that is required to make it > happen on demand. A process cannot be believed or even studied unless it > can be made to occur on demand. So far, LENR occurs occasion

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > It makes no sense to demand "a testable theory or a demonstrably practical > device." Science does not work that way. It usually starts with discovery > and then progresses to theory, to practical device. (On rare occasions the > theory com

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > ***There currently is no accepted theory of gravity. There is a law of > gravity but no widely accepted theory. > That is correct. As far as I know there is no theory explaining inertia either. And in fact, when the Wright brothers got a patent for their invention, >

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

This is the theory of gravity I like best. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity#Erik_Verlinde.27s_theory "There is no reasonable doubt concerning the physical reality of entropic forces, and no reasonable doubt that classical (and semi-classical) general relativity is closely related to

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

People seem to be missing the essential issue here. A theory gives information about a process or phenomenon that is required to make it happen on demand. A process cannot be believed or even studied unless it can be made to occur on demand. So far, LENR occurs occasionally by chance or bec

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

What I am saying here is that you can't just make up arbitrary new rules and apply them to cold fusion. You cannot demand standards never applied to any previous breakthrough in science or technology. Widespread, peer-reviewed, high sigma replication is not just the gold standard of truth in experi

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

So sorry, please excuse me. Here is the first page as follows page 120 Ultrafast Cathodoluminescence for Improved Gamma-Ray Scintillators Jeffrey M. Pietryga 20100183ER Introduction Energy resolving gamma-ray detectors are crucial to national security, nonproliferation, and basic research

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

> > Mark Gibbs wrote: > > When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a >> testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great >> invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed. >> > > ***There currently is no accepted theory of gravity. There

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Mark Gibbs wrote: When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a > testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great > invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed. > I still disagree. Other discoveries, such as high temperature superconduct

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Axil: That article is exceedingly difficult to read. It's 2 pages embedded into 969 pages of PDF and page 120 is blank. For the sake of others, so they do not have to try 6 times to load the page, I have copied what I could, but it does not contain page 120... because it is blank. http://www.l

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Mark, if you read subsequent messages you will discover that a different of opinion does, in fact, exist. Ed On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed. It sure sounds like you now think a theory is required ... [m] [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vor

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

OK Abd, this is good progress. Here is where I see differences. 1. You believe people may learn to control LENR by trial and error and I believe this will only happen when the correct explanation is applied. 2. You believe many different LENR mechanisms exist and I believe there is only one.

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

See my post: How to build a gamma shield Cheers: Axil On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Axil, I suggest for a theory or process, such as you suggest, to be > useful, it needs to be applied to real materials in ways that can be > utilized by people who attempt to make power

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

Axil, I suggest for a theory or process, such as you suggest, to be useful, it needs to be applied to real materials in ways that can be utilized by people who attempt to make power by the process. If you think nano-photonics is important, please show exactly how the idea applies to PdD, fo

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

*As for my theory, I have created a logical structure based on what needs to be explained using as few assumptions as possible. The theory identifies what needs to be created in the material (gaps of a critical size) and what must take place in this location to be consistent with observation (a res

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

I will ignore the nit-picking and focus on the important points Abd raised. First of all, he and I have a fundamental difference of opinion that can not be resolved by facts or discussion because it stems from a basic difference in attitude. So, I will not address this difference. However