Ed, I suspect that what you describe is a very common occurrence in the experimental science world. We all want some form of support for the process that we use to solve problems, but there are many times that something unexpected shows up which then leads us in an entirely different direction. I know from my experience that I generally begin solving a complex problem by making a series of assumptions based upon my model of the system. As I seek evidence to support the original assumptions I often find unusual behavior that is not consistent with my model.
If I pursue the new leads that arise from inconsistencies, additional ones will occur that force me to adjust my original model of the thing, whatever it is. This procedure allows a researcher or problem solver to modify their understanding of the device as they link all the pieces of evidence together. A person must be capable of realizing that what they originally think is important might not turn out to be in the final conclusion and that is pretty much where we are in LENR today. No one can prove that their pet theory is correct at this time and there are a multitude of ideas in contention. The ultimate conclusion may not even be currently up for review , so it is a wise idea for us to keep our minds open to new concepts. Many of us question the W&L theory, but it does have its supporters in high places. Perhaps they have lost touch with reality, but there is a tiny chance that we are the ones that need to open our minds and eyes. An example of the flow of problem solving is immediately available in the form of the time domain program I just developed that does a remarkable job of matching the behavior of MFMP Celani cell temperature response with time. I started the analysis by noticing that the temperature versus time behavior appeared to follow an exponential relationship. This was soon found to be over simplified as I was expecting. One small change in ideas followed the next as I reviewed the errors until I realized how to construct the non linear differential equation that explained the system behavior. Then I came to the realization that my curve had the correct shape but was not fitting the data with time as I had hoped. A bright idea hit me that the glass added a delay process as the heat conducted toward the outer surface and the design was completed. I left out a great deal of pain and discovery in this history lesson, but the general idea is that what I ultimately came up with was quite a bit removed from where it began. My best guess is that some of the concepts being applied in our attempt to explain LENR behavior are applicable, but many will not fit into the final model very well. The guys at NASA are attempting a shot gun type of approach. No one knows whether or not unusual behavior will be demonstrated at this time, but I would not be surprised. If they are knowledgeable enough and something new comes to light, we might all get a welcome gift. I have my fingers crossed that at least one of the many cells that they are testing will not match our expectations. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 9:25 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:ANS Nuclear Cafe: Short interview with Zawodny But Eric, this is not how experimental studies work. Generally people see what they look for. For example, Swartz has a model he uses to explain what he see and he explains the behavior only in this way. Fleischmann had a model based on Preparata that provided his guidance, which lead to an approach for doing experiments that was based only on the model. I suffer from the same reliance on my model. As a result, no one changes their mind because Nature always supports the model being used. Therefore, it is important to start a study using a model close to the correct one. People who say they will simply do the study and see what happens are not telling the truth. This is not a simple physics problem that has a clear answer. The answer will not be clear. The result will be complex and will make no sense without a model being applied. For example, a person will see a little heat. He will run the experiment again using what appears to be the same material and see nothing. Was the first result error or was the material used the second time not exactly the same as the first time? How do you decide? At this point a model is applied. Which model you use determines what you do next. Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:21 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. That's right -- it should be like Newton's method for finding the roots of a real-valued function. You pick some starting point -- anywhere, really, as long as it is not too far afield -- and then you plug away, Edisonian-like, gradually narrowing down the possibilities without being dogmatic about what has been set aside, since new information may come to light that causes one to reevaluate previous evidence. In this context I don't see much use for hewing to a specific theory when approaching a very challenging problem. Anything is beloved that delivers, even heavy electrons. ;) Eric
