Nasa like so many others suffers from theory fixation. They fail to look at other systems for behavior that closely resembles what happens in LENR to gain insight into the physical mechanisms that underpin both systems.
It is actually these universal mechanisms that are important and not the theories that they inspire. Nasa needs to fill their conceptual tool bag with these mechanisms to properly apply them to the LENR puzzle. Certain preconceptions block advancement of a valid theory. In the case of Nasa, it is the need to generate neutrons to allow penetration of the nucleus. There are other ways that the coulomb barrier can be overcome. Another concept that hangs people up is the conditions under which a condensate can form. When shown an experiment that shows how a condensate can be form at extreme temperatures, this concept should be included in the LENR tool kit. It is not a question of imagination, but applying experimentally demonstrated concepts in appropriate ways to describe similar behavior that also appears in LENR. This is what you must mean by plugging away; constantly looking at your conceptual toolkit to see the best ways and the appropriate order in which they can be applied to solve the LENR puzzle. We all need to be supple of theory in this process of explanation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:21 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not sure anyone has a good answer to your question Ed. I do not care > what theory they are operating upon at the moment as long as they keep > plugging away. One day we might be able to set them straight, but that > will not happen if they give up too soon. Encourage them in any way that > you can for now. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 3:08 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny > > I added the following comment: > > The experimental approach and the intention for applying LENR in space > should be be admired. The problem is with the theory being explored. > This theory is flawed in so many ways, all of which have been well > explained in published papers, that I’m amazed that NASA would > seriously explore the idea. Many other explanations have much better > consistency with observed behavior and with basic physics. Why is a > universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question? > > Ed > On Feb 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions > > > > The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview > > with > > Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley > > Research > > Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” > > at > > NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this new form of nuclear > > power—IF theory is validated by experimental results. > > > > http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/ > > > > > > >
