At 12:25 PM 4/9/2012, [email protected] wrote:
Abd,
First, thanks for putting in so much effort into your review.
I think most of us find the reaction pathways bewildering complicated.
I am perplexed, though, that you say that McKubre's experiments provide no
evidence for W-L theory, since he is now a technical advisor for Brillouin
Energy. Brillouin's video claims that (W-L theory) electron capture
initiates a reaction chain that ends with alpha-particle production.
I'm, in turn, perplexed by your perplexity. What does McKubre being a
technical advisor for Brillouin Energy have to do with whether or not
his experimental work (which Larsen attempts to shoot down) provides
"evidence for W-L theory."?
McKubre is a consultant, hired to do this or that. I'd guess
Brillouin is paying him. It increased their credibility, but, again,
whether or not they have an operating reactor is not established by
the fact of McKubre's being an advisor -- if that's true, I haven't
heard it from him.
Nor is the theory used to explain their results relevant. If they
developed the device based on predictions of the theory, that could
have some relevance. Did they? What predictions? Has this been published?
Do you communicate with McKubre and have any update on his theory?
- especially wrt Brillouin's LENR hypothesis.
I do communicate with McKubre, on occasion, but one of the reasons I
can communicate with McKubre is that I don't ask him questions unless
I need to have an answer from him. I don't, not about this, not at
this point. If I do, I'll ask.
Note that my concern has been and remains, for the most part, PdD
results. NiH is very possibly a different animal, and it may be, for
example, that the products are different and that there is radiation from NiH.
This is really very, very simple. Scientific theories are, as part of
the scientific method, developed to predict experimental outcomes. A
scientific theory is "successful" if it increases predictability over
that state of knowledge -- or ignorance -- that precededs it.
That does not mean that the theory is "true." It merely means that it
is useful.
So, is W-L theory useful? How? Where has it shown *predictions* that
could not otherwise have been anticipated?
Post-hoc analysis of experimental data is interesting and can suggest
hypothesis formation, but is not adequate, normally.
There is a gray area. If there are complex experimental results, and
a theory, upon analysis, can be shown as *accurately* predicting the
results, it enters an intermediate state, a state where it may be
entitled to some assumption of usefulness, but this should properly
always be subject to verification (or falsification).
I do not see any experimental reports where this was attempted. And
it could easily be done, W-L theory does make possible some
quantitative predictions. Where is that work?
Missing.
There is also no post-hoc analysis showing quantitative predictions,
only some results that are then cited as confirmation of the theory
*without* quantitative analysis. And that seem to make no sense as
realizations of the theory when examined. I.e., that claim that the
31 MeV findings confirm W-L theory because a reaction can be
postulated that was designed to fit 31 MeV, but there is no
explanation even attempted as to why this particular reaction would
so dominate. Rather, it's assumed that because the result was 31 MeV,
the reaction must be the one picked. Out of a large family of
reactions that could have been asserted. And that reaction requires
multiple activations, which seem totally unlikely.
So not only no experimental confirmation, there no post-hoc analysis
to even establish W-L theory as reasonably possible.
Instead there is a barrage of what seems to be irrelevant
information, speculation about a "carbon cycle," without the
experimental observation to establish is. All woven together,
effectively obscuriing the radical unlikelihood of what is being
claimed, because the reasons that it would be unlikely are *ignored.*
Without experimental confirmation of the elements of the theory, it's
a house of cards. Given that confirmation *should be* easy, what's
going on? If it's not easy, where are the reports of attempts and failures?
Absent. It could be like Rossi. Larsen, asked about experimental
confirmation of gamma screening, years ago, responded that this was
proprietary information. Great. Might even be true. But ... sorry, we
do not develop a community understanding of scientific fact based on
secret information!
