Your largely of course about Norman Cook having his own views about how to 
present the Nucleus, but I found the initial part of his book where he 
describes the relationship between various states and nucleus stability which 
is data based and independent of his ideas quite interesting.

By bottom up I mean looking at and understanding the raw data from the isotope 
and transmutations in the nucleus in this data and comparing it to other known 
raw data to see if it can inform about higher level processes that could be 
nuclear, atomic, chemical or any number of higher level processes.


On 16 Sep 2016, at 15:11, Eric Walker 
<eric.wal...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
<stephen_coo...@hotmail.com<mailto:stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

This [using Norman Cook's theory as a guide] would be a bottom up approach from 
first principles which might the match well with one or more of the more usual 
top down theories ideas.

This sounds like a top-down approach, starting from some assumptions about 
what's going on and then interpreting the data.  What I was thinking of was a 
bottom-up approach, where one keeps theory out of the picture as much and just 
catalogues what's been found.  Ed Storm's "Science of Low Energy Nuclear 
Reaction" gives a good high-level overview, but it doesn't go into sufficient 
detail.  After reading that book, it's probably good to start looking at actual 
experimental papers.  There are several authors that have repeatedly reported 
them over the years, including but not limited to these ones:

  *   Iwamura
  *   Mizuno
  *   Saavatimova
  *   Karabut

Reading their papers is a good start.  Although transmutations are all over the 
map, there are a handful of possible patterns that could be followed up on 
more.  Here is a speculative attempt I made not at systematizing the data but 
at guessing at what's going on: http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0278v2.pdf.  Because 
it was speculative, one shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.  Also, there's 
a section on Rossi that is unfortunately probably incorrect and should be 
ignored.

What I would have loved when I was writing that paper was a reliable 
systematization of the transmutation research, which goes into great detail on 
what's been reported without introducing theoretical considerations.

Eric

Reply via email to