On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this.
Yes, so far it is just seemingly a random word salad. My first inkling was it might be a Touring test. It is indeed a problem when a new theory is unnecessarily cloaked in an author's personal and inadequately defined vocabulary. It is further a problem when a miracle of physics must be accepted almost once per paragraph, without an adequate reference, derivation, or even clear description. A complete lack of quantification or formulation is a possible indication of the application of a purely linguistic computational process, though the development of relevant figures is admittedly quite outside that realm. You have to check out the references to see the figures, though, so they didn't affect my initial impression.
One of the problems with cold fusion theories, especially in the early days, was that two or three "miracles" had to be accepted for any of them to be workable. One criteria for evaluating competing CF theories was the number of miracles required. The more miracles required, the worse the theory.
Frank, perhaps a useful thing to do is avoid a lot of work trying to unravel all this and just jump to the conclusions. Does your theory make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions? Does it provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy producing device?
Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
