I do not see many prospects for a theory.
Sorry Jed, but you asked for this - Of course you don't see many
prospects for theory. Your words: "I don't care about theory."
Whether I care about it or not has no bearing on the prospects for a
robust theory. I know what is being published. Not much about theory. Also
I have heard from both experimentalists and theorists that they think cold
fusion theory is pretty much dead in the water. Of course, that could
change quickly. It does not take much to launch a theory. As Einstein said
all you need is a pencil and paper.
Jed,
Good point. Lord knows there are lots of pencils and plenty of paper out there.
Forgive me, I must have misunderstood your comment about what you give a
f*** about ["fig" was your exact word]:
And I meant exactly that: fig (Ficus carica). Not "figure" (which has
abbreviated with a capital and period: "Fig.") and certainly not what you
are implying, so the asterisks are hardly called for and you need only two.
It was my understanding that your use of the fruit "f" word was a polite
replacement of the more vulgar "f" word. So know I know better. When I see
you use the word "fig" (without the period) I will be sure to understand
that you are talking about ficus caricum.
"I have not examined the other claims because frankly, I only care about
heat. If they have not nailed down heat who cares what else they have? I
don't give a fig about tritium or neutrons or shrinking Mills hydrinos
for that matter, and especially I don't care about theory."
You meant something else?
I meant exactly what I said, as always. I, Jed, have no use for theory.
Why would I do with it? I do not understand it and I cannot distinguish a
good theory from a bad one.
You may underestimate yourself. I suspect you may have more capacity to
understand - at least conceptual mechanisms, not necessarily the
mathematics - than you give yourself credit for.
Perhaps the theories you've looked at so far are indeed hair-brained,
castles-in-the-sky, spaghetti-code upchuck and you are justified to
relegate all that has crossed your path as unworthy of your attention.
It may come to pass that the definitive theory comes to me first. In that
event I shall spend several hours correcting spelling, tense, person and
number, and probably the formatting of equation numbers and footnotes
(which most authors get wrong), without having the foggiest notion that I
am dealing with the be-all, end-all answer to cold fusion. I am not the
only one. A distinguished experimentalist recently said that a theory
paper "it might as well be in Chinese for all I can make of it." That's
another problem: even if a good theory emerges, many experimentalists will
not pay attention because they do not understand modern theories.
I agree with the challenge, but I think you're over-generalizing. And if
experimentalists completely disregard theory, I think they are limiting
themselves. As I see it, there are three pathways forward: Develop a purely
empirical understanding of how to make LENR work, develop a theoretical
understanding, or combine knowledge from both paths.
They skip the ICCF theory sessions. There is a gap between the two groups.
That indeed is a problem. Perhaps the reason for the disinterest is
legitimate; perhaps the theory sessions presented thus far have been filled
with jibberish and self-gratifying fantasy-ego adventures. But we gotta
give these people credit for trying, and for their persistence and their
imagination, doncha think?
But anyway, just because I have no use for theory, that does not mean
other people have no use for theory. I doubt many people have a use for a
11-year-old guide to Borland Delphi Pascal Ver. 4.0, but I need it!
Still coding in Pascal? Cool!
Steve
