Hi All. Jones writes: >Well, we should all be aware that LENR is SO very >diverse and often self-contradictory in the details >that there is a "body of literature" that favors both >sides of almost every relevant issue, this one >included.
Excellent point. For about as many papers on the LENR site point towards a surface effect rather than a bulk effect. It's quite possible both exist; the truth is the current data is sketchy and incomplete. Rather like the maps of the new world for those early explorers. Should we be arguing about the existance of the edge or the dragons ore should we focus on simply moving forward and mapping what we see regardless of how disturbing the results. I've always tended towards the surface explaination, too many of my own experiments and those of others I respect indicate this. This certainly does not preclude a bulk effect but given the history of the field doesn't it seem like one of the problems for progress is an early belief, a fixed idea, which may in fact be a fish of a familiar rouge??? Horace writes: >There is a huge body of literature that says otherwise. How do you account >for a major difference in results using H/Pd controls vs D/Pd for example? >How do you account for observed changes in crystaline structure indicating >thermal hot spots *inside* the cathode? How do you account for the huge body of literature that says otherwise? I have no real problem with both models, but I gather you may have one with the interfacial model. Or am I just overreading your post? K.
