At 11:40 PM 4/10/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman
Lomax <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
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. Â But I think you risk putting the cart
before the horse, here. Â 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. Â
It's obviously important to have good
measurements to work with. Â But what is needed
of a theory is something -- anything -- that can
be tested. Â It seems like too strong a
statement to say that quantitative predictions
are crucial to a theory, at least in the early stages.
The early stage could be called "brainstorming,"
and in brainstorming we don't reject *anything*,
we "list" it. However, in the next stage, we
start to look at predictions. W-L theory easily leads to certain predictions.
The "deuterium -> helium" "theory" also leads to
a prediction, that (if this is the only active
pathway, an important qualification) helium and
heat will be correlated at 23.8 MeV, within
experimental error. This theory was, so far,
successful. It's been confirmed, though the
confirmation could certainly be tightened up.
To compete with this "theory" -- which is
incorrectly labelled the theory of "DD fusion" --
W-L theory must show better quantitative
predictions. The D -> He theory allows that small
levels of transmutation and even hot fusion may
occur, but without an elaboration of exact
process, it cannot predict those transmutations.
W-L theory could. So .... it appears from a naive
analysis that the required transmutations (not to
mention gammas) are missing. But Larsen is
welcome to do the work to apply his own theory
and make specific predictions. Or anyone else.
That's what W-L theory needs at this point. Not
glossy slide shows that gloss over the problems.
Frankly, I don't think that it can be done,
Larsen already knows that such work would come up
with predictions that fail. He doesn't test and
publish results from his "gamma shield invention"
because they don't exist, but maybe he'll get it
right next month. Read that patent. It does not
say how to make the device, with anything like
adequate detail. It's an invalid patent, my opinion. Not a lawyer.
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. Â 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. Â 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.
No, it's simple. If deuterium fusion is taking
place, that will liberate 23.8 MeV of energy per
helium atom produced. If the mechanism results in
100% efficient conversion of this energy to
lattice heat, that's it. Nothing else would
happen. But it's quite likely that the mechanism
isn't perfect. So there will be some slop. The
Hagelstein limit of 20 KeV for charged particles
is not a theoretical limit, i.e., it does not
rule out the emission of charged particles with
well over that limit. It is based on experimental
evidence that such emission is only present at,
at most, low levels. I.e., the main mechanism
cannot involve the creation of charged particles with energy over the limit.
An example. Suppose that BECs are formed, and
that fusion takes place within the BECS, it's one
of the plausible explanations on the table.
Suppose that fusion within a BEC does transfer
energy to the lattice efficiently. Okay, there
we'd have a more complete theory. But what
happens if the BEC, before decaying and releasing
its contents, collides with a nucleus? It's
neutral, and it's very small. It could easily
fuse, just as could a neutron. And then you'd get
normal fusion products. But mostly the BECs don't
collide. They are formed with very low relative
velocity to the lattice. Probably about zero. But
stray stuff is floating around in there. A
deuteron could, for example, collide with the BEC. Wouldn't happen very often.
But enough to explain the side-products that are found.
Look, there is a main reaction. It produces heat
and helium at roughly the right amount, as
expected from deuterium -> helium. That's the
place to start, if we want to understand cold
fusion. That does not tell us "mechanism." It just narrows the search a little.
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. Â But this is certainly not a
starting point I will depart from.
It's pretty necessary. I don't see how you can
have the same reaction, for example, for PdD and
NiH. You *might* have the same class of reaction, but that's speculative.
Pons and Fleischmann discovered a New World. And
observed one beast inhabiting it. There are lots
of signs that there are other beasts. I'm saying,
lets study the known beast, and understand it.
Combining together all the observations of all
the beasts, as if there were only one, could take
us down an unnecessarily complex path. If we
understand *one*, then we can look at the others
and, of course, we will attempt to apply what we
have learned about the first one.
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. Â 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.
I'm not concerned with the "official record," per
se. However, well-reported research is not the
same as unsubstantiated rumor. "Proprietary
information" is fine, for business. It is
practically worthless for science, unless shared.
If Widom and Larsen were to report their
findings, if they have any, in attempts to
confirm their theory, I'd accept those findings
as "testimony," and the common-law principle is
that testimony is presumed true unless controverted.
But we don't have any of that.
If you are concerned with real science, start to
get your hands dirty. It will be necessary.
