RE: [Vo]:Re: DCE, PEC and TiH2Jones-- Several additional observations/ideas:
1. If resonances are involved in the mechanism(s) for release of heat, getting two or more associated with different mechanisms to happen at the same time (or in a very short time) may be tough and be the reason why LENR is so difficult to replicate. However, this may be the necessary condition to allow exchange of energy within a coherent system which includes both nuclear and chemical bonds. 2. I have long thought that the Ockham’s razor dictum is only an empirical model—something like the Standard Model— It does not appear to hold as phenomena get complicated, particularly when reactions occur within the confines of a coherent system with many entities taking part. 3. Anharmonic phenomena are good examples of complexity in non-coherent systems that happen unexpectedly and take time to understand. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 8:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: DCE, PEC and TiH2 From: Bob Cook If I understand the crux of your theory, there is a phase change going on that harvests energy from some source…In the cases where a plasma is apparent, what is the nature of the phase change you indicate is happening? Bob, One of the main problems with LENR from the start is that observers have desperately desired to streamline the appearance of excess heat down to a single cause/effect, preferably of a nuclear origin. In fact there could be multiple things going on in any one experiment, despite Ockham’s razor. Rarely does Ockham provide effective guidance in science. Things are always more complex, the closer your look and in fact the inverse of Ockham is more likely to be useful. These differing sub-effects of “hydrogen loaded metals” could be as many as six to ten independent phenomena, which can interact in such a way that excess heat happens, or endotherm happens, or transmutation happens, or excess heat happens in balance with endotherm and in several different ways and disappears unexpectedly… but none of these effects are guaranteed to be either independent or closely related. Yet, because of Ockham, many observers feel the overwhelming need to label it all under a single base cause, which includes fusion. My main point is that it is a mistake to try to shoehorn everything into any umbrella grouping: whether it be a cold-fusion category, or a Storms NAE effect or a Mills-effect category or a Holmlid-effect category … but this is what happens all the time. Plus, two or more categories can be interrelated at one level and independent on another level such that complexity alwasy prevails. But this predicament is not hopeless. When stripped down to basics, there is one effect which must precede all the others. It involves the “loading” of hydrogen or deuterium, for lack of a better word. It is possible to envision the “cyclical loading/unloading” effect which is highlighted in the Miley paper which was cited, as the simplest thermal anomaly of all. Yet this one is grouped into the LENR category despite having no nuclear nexus. Other effects may build on it in a nuclear way - since it is the most basic effect, but it should be understood on its own. This most basic loading/unloading effect is characterized by being: 1) Non-nuclear 2) Low COP for thermal gain - and in fact sometimes showing anomalous cooling 3) Limited to a narrow range of heat and pressure 4) Involves phase-change and a magnetic field interaction 5) Possibly involved in hydrogen densification, but only after an extended period of time 6) Generally ignored or missed as being relevant since it is a slow effect which can be endothermic or have a period of endotherm. I hope this post will serve as the start of a total and long overdue “de-Ockhamization” of LENR… J Jones
