Dear Abd, I agree with your thread of thinking. However, in the paper I have intentionally not mentioned that our Sacrosanct Physics is in a state indistinguishable from a Crisis, There are many similar problems having no genuine theory, or not complete theory, or two theories that are in part incompatible and the scientists cannot decide which is the best. Cold Fusion, Cold Fusion has the extra troubles wsith experiment; the other theoretical weaklings are usable, repeatable, upscalable, normal. The most proximal example is probable HTSC high temperature superconductivity. Due to material problems the applicaations of HTSC are still limited, in 1986 we thought that HTSC will be very present in our homes and will dwarf the electricity. bills. The reality is different.
Your last sentence seems to be explosively true Who knows what say the best theoreticians- I fear that with our level of knowledge of today, it is not possible to elaborate an unique perfect theory of Pd-D LENR/CF. We are not omniscient enough for that. We will have a multitude of partial explanation. The problem is to find a theory that is pragmatically and operationally sufficient. For Ni/H (actually transition metals/hydrogen Ni is in part a harbinger it seems be easier, if the theorist considers experimental reality- better knowable in this case Peter On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 02:47 PM 10/11/2012, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> My dear Friends, >> >> I have a special professional relationship with >> effectiveness and efficiency and as you know, with LENR. >> In my paper: >> <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-** >> cold-fusionlenr-research.html<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-cold-fusionlenr-research.html> >> >**http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-** >> cold-fusionlenr-research.html<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/10/efficiency-ofin-cold-fusionlenr-research.html> >> >> you will find a few ideas about how these can work together. >> > > Well, Peter, palladium deuteride may well be a dead end for energy > production. Tossing billions of research dollars at it makes no sense. > Rather, palladium deuteride needs probably a few million dollars, carefully > spent to investigate and elucidate the mechanism. I'd be astonished if it > took a billion dollars. > > Essentially, what is needed is what both U.S. Department of Energy reviews > of the field recommended. Basic research to answer basic questions. > > Where the big money will go, then, would be into the design and > engineering of whatever approach can be created once the basic physics and > materials science are understood. That might be nickel-hydrogen, though > Storms seems to think not. Deuterium is still an attractive fuel. It's the > palladium that is crazy expensive, and palladium catalysis that is so > unreliable, so far. > > We really won't know where to go until that basic scientific research is > done. We need the physics community to stop pretending that cold fusion > will just go away if they ignore it, to roll up their sleeves and use their > theoretical tools, as well as improved experiments, to figure how what's > actually happening in palladium deuteride to convert deuterium to helium. > (And whatever else is going on in there.) > > It's a difficult problem. I wonder if the physicists are up to the > challenge. > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
