this is an essential point. Good-mannered versus bad-mannered LENR.
I keep repeating myself. I'm not not a an nuclear physicist, but do not need to be one. This is a question of reasoning There are several theories for the good-mannered category. Say Godes and Piantelli and W-L. Piantelli is a current case: ... Piantelli has a theory that doesn’t require exotic reactions, but can be explained using known physics and mathematics. A semi-complete theory has been provided to the University of Siena and will be published shortly. The complete theory will probably be disclosed after the first commercial units have been sold. ... http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/09/italian-lenr-workshop-april-10-14/ Fine. Problem is, You have a set of evidence, and fit YOUR theory to YOUR evidence. It is the same with Godes. But what is accepted evidence? Are You free to choose, what evidence is, what sloppy science, what delusion, what fraud? Well. Seems, even scientists need some commonsense to decide upon such senible questions. As someone coming from the engineering side, I call theory-building on a singular set of evidence OVERFITTING, which means, that such a normally theory explains ONES OWN set of evidence, but not the SPECTRUM of evidence, which includes, in the case of LENR, up to now, higher order transmutations, which are NOT included in any theory of Good-mannered LENR, which concentrates on He-X-production, and stops there. The question of higher order transmutations is mainly ignored. The LENR-crowd deplores the stubborn orthodoxy, on the other hand the 'good-mannered-LENR'-crowd ignores 'extremists' like LeClair and other evidence of 'bad-mannered LENR'.. Why? Because no remotely acceptable theory exists for the 'bad' case-- (at least to my knowledge) Therefore: what must not exist, does not exist. Guenter ________________________________ Von: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> An: [email protected] Gesendet: 21:33 Dienstag, 10.April 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other "bursty") phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures - i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition. Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays. BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/ Axil Axil wrote: > I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the > possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion. Some systems show life > after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. > A > single cause should show the same type of behavior. > > What does (Lattice Energy LLC) theory state in explanation of this “life > after death” behavior? > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled >> - >> "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) >> New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning" - at - >> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen >> >> He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective >> motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, >> can >> form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events. >> >> Slides 18-20 ("Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III") >> review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on >> whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce >> transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf). >> >> Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled >> electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam >> of >> uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none. Rutherford's eminence >> trumped Wendt's more modest reputation. >> >> Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce >> - >> using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's. >> >> Has anyone tried to reproduce it? >> >> >> >> >> >> >
