I had unsubscribed and never intending to repost here again but I just can't stand the pretentious verbal diarrhea of this self-appointed so called LENR Expert.
Last time I checked, science and the scientific method involves First, coming up with a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomena, then testing your hypothesis with experiments. And this is exactly what CE is doing. He has come up with a hypothesis and I believe he intends to test it with experiments. He has graciously shared his theory for peer review and discussion. He has done the first steps of what a good scientist should be doing. Of course, I am cognizant of the fact that his theory is new and a little incomplete, but CE has made no pretensions otherwise. But instead of contributing to the discussion about the theory and advancing our understanding, Abd has resorted to envious criticism. This verbal diarrhea is symptomatic of what is wrong with scienctists nowadays (not that I consider this dude to be a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.) Too much pride and false expertise being thrown around. This dude Abd thinks he is an expert in LENR, and criticizes anything that he did not come up with. He did it with Axil and now with CE. Yet, he himself has not really come up with anything to advance our understanding of this field. Nor is he involved in any experiment that we know of, to help explain the phenomena. Just all talk and verbal diarrhea and criticisms and insults. Frankly, I am sick of all talk and no action from this dude. Though I do not consider myself an expert, at least I am doing something to help explain this phenomena. Much much more that what Abd has done with his pretentious criticisms and verbal diarrhea. Jojo PS: Tell us Abd exactly what your expertise is. A quick google search reveals Abd to be a college dropout who's claim to famed is that he "studied" physics. Now, he is a wikipedia editor for Cold Fusion. So, this is the background of our Wiki "expert". You know what my mother always says; " Shallow waters run noisy." LOL ... Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:42:38 -0700 At 05:02 AM 8/15/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it is a little too early for that. Really, CE? Were you actually that naive? Here is the situation. PdD cold fusion was discovered -- or rediscovered -- over twenty years ago. There is still a lot that is unknown about the reaction conditions and details. The problem has engaged many highly knowledgeable people, including theoretical physicists, specialists in quantum mechanics, and Nobel Prize winners. Nobody has yet come up with a theory, to date, that is satisfying, that successfully functions to predict experimental outcomes, particularly when we look for quantitative predictions of any accuracy. Sometimes theory has predicted a general outcome. For example, Miles was aware of Preparata's theory, that predicted helium as the primary ash, when he did his work to demonstrate the heat/helium correlation. But since helium was already on the table as a normal product of fusion (albeit at a different branching ratio), this can't be seen as much of a confirmation of Preparata's theory. And I'm not even familiar with Preparata's actual theory, it's not given much shrift today. Most of the early theories looked to the lattice as the reaction site, it was only known later that the FPHE is a surface effect. If everyone could get on the same page this fledgling industry can generate some serious revenue and transform the World! Cart before the horse, CE. We need more science, first. We need to know more experimental results. You seem to think that the obstacle is a lack of explanatory theory. No, it's been pointed out by many that we have too many theories, and not enough testing. Many of the existing "theories" have been inadequately developed to be used to make specific predictions that can discriminate between theories. Really, many of these theories are only conjectures, that *possibly* this or that phenomenon is involved. I'm not seeing anything different about your gremlin (singularity) theory. You simply assert possibility, and you are asserting it about a phenomenon where we don't have experimental evidence that the phenomenon even exists, and what consequences it would have. It's quite convenient for the formation of new theories. Since nobody really knows how small singularities would behave, just make up whatever behavior you can imagine might be so. You can then explain all kinds of anomalies. However, producing real value, in terms of increasing our predictive capacity, the goal of theory development in science, is quite another matter, more difficult. My theory explains the following observations: Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon observations the anomalous effect occurs in the cracks and voids of the lattice. Collapsed matter from hydrogen ion collapse would certainly occur in these locations due to concentrated energy charges, hoop effect and collisions. Prof. Celani has witnessed the same effect. CE, this is totally made up. It's not stated why singularities would only occur in cracks and voids. No clue is given for the actual size of the defects. (A similar criticism can be made about Storm's theory, though he does propose some limits. The crack cannot be so large as to allow D2 formation, and obviously it must be larger than the lattice spacing.) Once collapsed matter singularities are formed they instantaneously seek thermodynamically stable states with their surroundings. Prof. Celani witnessed that once his metal lattice had been loaded with hydrogen and had previously shown anomalous heat generation he could shut the system down, transport it and it would immediately show further anomalous heat upon excitation without additional loading. The singularities remained within the lattice during transportation to Austin. Or the cracks and loading remained, or Celani's work is showing a heat artifact, or, or. Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. No explained observation. I'd expect uncharged singularities (and some would be uncharged, it depends on what they have eaten) to be promiscuous, they would be like ULM neutrons. There would be some very observable effects. Temperature Inversion. Dr. Brian Ahern mentioned temperature inversion within samples in the nanometer range. It is well understood that singularites can consume heat from their environment, temporarily cooling their surroundings. Eventually, they will evaporate that energy and entropy back to their surroundings through Hawking radiation. Of course, any kind of chemical storage effect can also explain negative XP. There is no actual explanation here, only an assertion that some effect *might* happen with singularities, conceived as a Swiss Army Knife of anomaly causation. Hawking Radiation should emit RELATIVELY low energy level radiation due to quantum gravity redshifting of the radiation as it escapes. This has been witnessed in most all anomalous heat events. No quantification, and with claims like this, quantification is essential. What "radiation" has been observed in "most" anomalous heat events? The amount of energy released can be great. This has been witnessed in the Intelligentry/Papp Engine as well as claimed by Rossi, DGT and Celani. Since Hawking Radiation obeys e=mc2, very high levels of energy may be released as the newly formed singularity seeks thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium within its environment. Some of this radiation may also be elementry atomic particles such as quarks and gluons. Essentially, gremlins can do anything. Really, they should be called the God particle, not this Higgs thing. So, then, we can explain any anomaly with Goddidit. There is a long tradiion in Vortex of taking unconfirmed, unverified, and often unquantified reports and then asserting them as proof of this or that wild theory. Of late, I'm seeing Papp, Rossi, DGT, and Celani used as proof of ... hey, if there are four anomalies in our universe, isn't asserting a common cause what Occam's Razor requires? What's wrong with this picture? Rossi/DGT/Celani, okay, they are all working with NiH. But Papp? Rossi/DGT assert XP, as heat. Very much as heat. Celani the same, working as a scientist, openly, and not such a large amount of heat. Papp? (I.e., the people now working with the Papp engine) Little or no heat, but pressure, and reported very, very incompletely. The most obvious things we'd want to know are not given. The Papp story is *weird*. Truly weird, it makes Rossi look like a sober, reliable character. Papp, it's known, actually faked some stuff, and likely faked some more. You really want to build your theory on "evidence" coming out of that mass of confusion? Hawking radiation may create Fission and Fusion products within the near vicinity. Since this radiation covers a wide spectrum, it will bombard the local environment with low level, wide spectrum radiation which over time should transmute additional elements. The good new is that the quantum gravitational pull of the singularity will lessen the radiations energy. It's all vague as hell. I'm not seeing *anything* that would be a guide to experimental verification. By not making truly specific predictions, with rates, one avoids, then, the possibility that already-existing data might rule the theory out. W-L theory pulls that trick. Collapse of nearby matter by falling into the singularity may lead to additional elements being transmuted in the local vicinity. The radiation energy from that will also be redshifted to weaker energy emissions. Again, only a vague prediction. Attempting to make quantitative predictions would reveal the weakness. "Transmuted" by what. If something is collapsing and gaining momentum as it collapses, what it might collide with is also in the influenced region. So how would these transmuted elements actually end up being observable? The "heat after death" syndrome is caused by the ongoing evaporation over time of the singularities as they continue to seek a thermodynamically stable state in their immediate environment as well as emit Hawking black body radiation. This has been witnessed in many cold fusion situations. Heat after death (which is simply continued or elevated XP after electrolytic power is turned off, it doesn't apply to gas-loading experiments) has been "witnessed." Not "ongoing evaporation over time," and the time-behavior of heat after death doesn't seem to match what would be seen as a relaxation -- evaporatoin -- phenomenon, which would show a particular kind of decline. Since singularities emit charged particles they should aid in sustaining the birth, evolution and evaporation of more singularities in the vicinity. Charged particle radiation is below certain fairly low thresholds, 20 KeV is what Hagelstein claims. There is no evidence that CP radiation has any effect like this. As the effects of singularities are described, they would be ubiquitous, but, then, useless as an explanation for cold fusion, which is far from ubiquitous. Now, to the point: the necessary consensus in the field of cold fusion theory is very unlikely to be formed by someone with little detailed and practical knowledge of quantum physics coming up with a bright idea that nobody else ever thought of. Chances are that any of these ideas has already been thought of, and rejected, by those with more knowledge. This doesn't mean, by itself, that you are wrong, CE. Just that some humility might be in order. Just realize how many people have looked at this, without fruit that can, as yet, actually be eaten. Storms has proposed a general theory of cold fusion in his recent paper. I suggest considering it as a series of hypotheses based on his extensive experience of the field. He's probably right about some of these, but he does stray into proposing a specific mechanism that, to this observer, seems preposterous. (I call it "slow fusion.") Nevertheless, it may turn out that the reality does, in some way, resemble what he's proposing. We won't know until we have far more data, very likely. I don't see that your theory, CE, explains the existing data, it's really just a series of conjectures that singularities might generate various convenient phenomena, with no actual, specific prediction. And certainly no verification. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that any physicist with a clear understanding of singularities (if anyone like that exists, the field is controversial) won't be quite so enthusiastic about your theory. Of this I'm sure. A cold fusion theory that requires a whole new field of phenomena, not simply an extension of what we already know and observe, into perhaps some unfamiliar territory, isn't going to be accepted unless it becomes completely unavoidable. We aren't even close to that yet, as to requiring singularities to explain the experimental phenomena. Madness lies down this road, be careful, CE. One can easily become convinced that one has The Answer, and if only others would listen....
