On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> No, not at all. Where did you get that idea? Heat is not missing, except > when we look at what would be required to generate the observed levels of > helium following the W-L pathways. The third missing observable is the > levels of transmuted elements that would be present as intermediate > products, or as end products if the helium is produced by alpha emission. > > (Which then leaves another problem, hot alphas, which would create other > observable effects.) > I'm reminded of the cloud chamber anecdote -- I'm hoping some more details will turn up in this connection. > It's crucial. I know of only one *partial* theory that actually makes > quantitative predictions, beyond Preparata's expectation of helium, and > it's not ready for publication. I definitely appreciate many of the points you raise. But I think you risk putting the cart before the horse, here. Some of the most important advances in physics were made through a conceptual leap of some kind, and only later were the quantitative implications worked out. It's obviously important to have good measurements to work with. But what is needed of a theory is something -- anything -- that can be tested. It seems like too strong a statement to say that quantitative predictions are crucial to a theory, at least in the early stages. I should add that while my questions were raised in the context of a thread about Widom and Larsen's theory, I don't have the faintest opinion concerning the complex formulae that they include in their papers, to the extent that I'm in a position to judge these things. I appreciate their contribution they've made in drawing attention to the possibility of neutron flux, even if the outlines of what they propose is unlikely or even preposterous. I'm a hobbyist, trying to understand LENR in context of the evidence on the transmutations of heavy elements, and I have not seen any good explanation for this apart from neutron flux or contamination. There are some problems associated with the identification of transmutation > products, and until there is adequate confirmation of results like those of > Iwamura, it's dangerous to base much on them. Iwamura's results are > certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been > replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent > case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent > transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular > ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to > research and write about here. > Perhaps -- but I think we have to err on the side of inclusivity of evidence or, as Guenter alluded to, risk selecting away important phenomena that any theory will need to explain. From a purely formal perspective, it is entirely possible that there is not one but several different reactions going on under the category of LENR. But this is certainly not a starting point I will depart from. The present mode of academic research, of excluding from consideration anything that has not been entered into the official record, is only suitable for legal courts and the obtaining of tenure. It's not the most efficient way of getting at the truth by any means, and as I become more and more familiar with academic research, I'm grateful not to feel bound by it. Eric
