This goes into something crucial. Comment will be appreciated.
At 04:08 PM 2/19/2013, Edmund Storms wrote:
A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic
paths.
People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any idea
that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can look for
the overall patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to do the
latter.
My attempt has been to encourage this; it is this identification of
"overall patterns" that is, in fact, the evidence we have about
LENR. Explanations ("mechanism") are not evidence.
As is the case with any complex process, logic demands that
the various parts have a definite relationship to each other.
I'll watch out for "logic demands." It's a red flag.
For
example, to make an automobile function, a power source has to be
coupled to a gear box through a mechanism that isolates the engine
from the wheels. The exact design is not important at this level of
understanding.
That's correct.
However, to simplify the description, general features
of each part are frequently described. At this stage in the process
of understanding, it is pointless to argue whether the engine is 4 or
6 cylinders or about the color of the car.
And if someone describes the car as having N cylinders, the
description might still be functional even if that number is in error.
I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their
required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This
behavior has several basic features as follows:
1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.
Yes.
2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission
using D and H.
*Probably*, but this may have *nothing to do* with the mechanism for
the FPHE. That's a realization that I've had, in the background,
i.e., the possibility that there is more than one effect operating,
because it's logically possible. The desire to have only one effect
is not controlling, if distinguishing and separating effects makes
explanation simpler. "More than one way to skin a cat."
Reading Schwinger brought me back to this. What if Jones is right
and wrong? I.e., right about his own ideas, and wrong about the FP
Heat Effect?
The most obvious possibility for a second reaction, happening at low
levels, is what might result from an increased ordinary fusion rate
due to the conditions of condensed matter. Lots of theorists have
proposed this, but it's mostly been rejected because, as Ed will
remind us, "the reaction" doesn't take place in the lattice, because
helium isn't found there. However, ordinary fusion would produce
very little helium. This "second reaction" might indeed take place
in the lattice. And the mechanism for it might be *very different*
from the mechanism for the FP Heat Effect.
I'm pointing out that a decent mechanism for PdD cold fusion need
not explain tritium. The main reaction does occur without "energetic
particle or neutron emission," or, for that matter, gamma rays,
etc., except at very low levels, if at all. The main reaction, what
we need an explanation for, most urgenty, is the production of
helium with nearly all of the releasted energy, or all, transferred
to the immediate environment as heat.
The "second reaction" may indeed produce tritium or even neutrons,
sometimes. It's a low-level reaction, very low, and may itself be
sensitive to *different conditions* than the surface-mediated FPHE.
So, my recommendation, one step at a time. We have a lot of data
already on PdD reactions, and we know the ash. So let "practical
theory" pursue *that reaction.*
3. The process is very sensitive to the nature of the material in
which it occurs.
Yes.
4. The process works using any isotope of hydrogen.
Again, that's a nonsequitur from the *clear experimental evidence.*
It's quite possible, but that is all part of the huge pile of loose
ends from over twenty years of unfocused (largely because unfunded
and because of the loss of grad student labor).
If there is a theory of mechanism that predicts 1 and 3, there is
*no reason* to deprecate it because it doesn't predict 2 and 4.
Many details add support and can be used to evaluate suggested
mechanisms, but are not required to define the basic process.
Again, recent discussions have clarified certain things for me.
Theory has a certain function. We think that we need "explanations"
for some effect for it to be accepted. That's backwards, in fact.
Over twenty years of effort has shown that cold fusion is not
communicated as a reality through proposing theories as to
mechanism. Those proposals have, historically, made the acceptance
of cold fusion very difficult, because they required a paradigm
shift and were proposed before the evidence necessary for such was
available.
Essentially, circumstantial evidence is not generally adequate to
cause a widely accepted paradigm shift, which won't occur until
scientists see the *necessity.*
So when we discuss theory, it's important to distinguish our *goal*.
Theory for theory's sake is a huge time-waster, and the
preoccupation of, too often, isolated fanatics.
In
addition, this process of evaluation requires a basic knowledge of
science and agreement that the LENR process must follow known rules
of
behavior in chemical systems.
How about "known rules of behavior in physical systems"?
Violations of either of these require "paradigm shifts," so the
evidence must be strong. When theory is presented before the
evidence is available, showing the *necessity* of the paradigm
shift, it can be expected to fail to be accepted.
It's like clockwork, and I don't think anything else can be expected.
To punch through this natural -- and necessary -- resistance, we
must focus on clear evidence, not on theory. If we lead with the
theory, before the evidence making theory *necessary* is fully
accepted and understood, we will create an expecation of error in
the minds of our audience.
Unfortunately, ignorance of these
conventional rules seems to be so common that this discussion keeps
being deflected from a useful path.
Frustrating, I'm sure.
Can we at least agree about the
basic behavior that needs to be explained and the basic rules that
need to be obeyed?
Above, I've shown that you may be over-ambitious in describing the
"basic behavior that needs to be explained," but, since your theory
does attempt to explain more behavior, that should not be an
obstacle to presenting your theory. It's only when you reject other
theories beause they don't explain, say, tritium and NiH reactions,
that that becomes an issue.
Perhaps other people would be willing to suggest
the rules they think are important - or no rules if they think LENR
occurs outside of normal scientific understanding.
Listing the rules would be useful. The list should not, however, be
only the list of conventional rules of behavior in chemical systems.
It should include rules about how energy is released in nuclear
processes.
Yes, it's quite possible that a cold fusion theory will need to
violate some accepted rule. *However*, until we are literally backed
into that corner, it's a serious error to prematurely promote cold
fusion theory to an audience not already convinced as to the
*necessity*.
There are violations of paradigms and violations of paradigms. Some
are more fundamental than others. For example, "No Bose Einstein
Condensates at Room Temperature," is not a fundamental paradigm.
That some behavior, that isn't known, might be happening, is simply
a mystery, not a violation of the laws of chemistry or physics.
Once a logical connection is proposed, this connection does not allow
the parts to be change arbitrarily.
The restriction is arbitrary and objectionable.
For example, individual parts of
the models proposed by Takahashi, Kim, or Hagelstein cannot be
modified without producing conflicts in the logical structure.
Unacceptable.
For example, Takahashi originally proposed 4D TSC fusion in the
lattice, at O-sites, I think. Seemed *tight* to me, unlikely.
However, I noticed right away that the mechanism he discribed was a
key looking for the right lock, i.e, the special conditions required
to allow the presence of double D2 with the right combination of
constraint and freedom. Basically, he needed an NAE.
This does not mean that TSC fusion is the cold fusion mechanism. My
position is, strongly, that we don't know what the mechanism is.
However, it's possible that, already, the various elements of a
successful theory have already been proposed, piecemeal. If we can
get people communicating better with each other, we'll have a better
shot of finding out.
Takahashi's model doesn't actually use the lattice data. His
calculation proceeds solely from an assumption of the TS condition,
which I understand to be two deuterium molecules, arranged cross-
wise, so that the individual deuterons are mutually equidistant, and
I assume that there must be low relative momentum. So his theory
might apply to any "trap." And that's just 4D. The actual reaction
may require larger clusters. Etc.
Takahashi's theory is also incomplete. He is working on how the
energy might be stored, short-term, as a halo state, allowing time
for a burst of photons at low energies to release most of the energy
before the Be-8 fissions.
It might be impossible, but ... we don't know. We should have
practiced saying "we don't know" in front of a mirror, before ever
trying to talk about cold fusion to the public. Because we don't
know, no matter how tempting it is to try to explain cold fusion.
The result of those explanations, so far, has been *disastrous.*
In
other words, all parts have to be accepted in each model if the basic
model is to be accepted.
That would be true for a complete acceptance of a fully developed
model. We are not there yet. There is *no model* at this stage.
A person is not free to pick the part they
like and reject the rest.
Why not? Seriously, what kind of restriction is this? We aren't free?
We are free, each and every one of us, and we are responsible for
what we do with this freedom.
Dr. Storms is letting his rhetoric make preposterous statements.
Scientific theories are not "owned," where only the proposer of the
theory may make modifications of it. We should give *credit* to
prior work, sure, and we should also not attribute to others what we
ourselves contributed, because they are not responsible for it.
I've *interpreted* Takahashi's theory, many times, and I needed to
make certain assumptions and, sometimes, modifications, to make it
make sense in context. Dr. Takahashi has always encouraged me in
this, and I think I remember, once, his correcting me.
The Takahashi model requires a cluster of 4
deuterons to form and fuse to make Be8,
That's the simplest model, yes. He does suggest that larger clusters
might be involved.
the Kin model requires a BEC
to form that can lower the barrier and dissipate nuclear energy as
many scattered deuterons,
Yes, as I understand it. This is not particularly different from
Takahashi, but focuses on larger clusters and doesn't do the
specific, individual, quantum field theory calculations.
the Hagelstein model requires metal atom
vacancies be present and be filled with deuterons that can vibrate
and
lose their energy as phonons.
Similar to Dr. Toimela. Hagelstein's theory can be generalized to
voids and gaps other than single-atom vacancies.
Just remember, every theory is preposterous until we are *forced* to
accept it. I need to think up some jingle.
http://www.cafe-philosophy.com/?q=quotes/confusion -- picking one
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation.
~ Edward R. Murrow
In this same way, my theory requires
gaps be present that are filled with a resonating structure that
dissipates energy as photons.
Quite similar, so far. Photons, phonons, schmonons. Something.
Meshugatrons? You gotta love Teller for that name.
All of the models, many of which I have
not used as examples, contain essential assumptions, many of which
conflict with normal expectations. The only question needing answer
is, Which theory is more likely to correctly describe LENR and which,
based on its internal logic, explains the greatest number
observations and can make the most useful predictions. Can we answer
this question without using nit picking?
Probably not. Next question?
Ed, I see your next step here as presenting the "laws" that you
expect must be followed.
But I'll answer the question anyway.
Your theory is more likely, and there is a reason. You have designed
your theory to match the experimental results, generally. Parts of
your theory will be used to make predictions that are really
independent from the other parts. If, for example, you predict that
making the right size of cracks causes a more powerful or more
reliable reaction, that would be confirming *that part of your
theory.* But the other theories might then also be used to analyze
*that* situation, and would have then incorporated *that aspect* of
your theory.
But the question I raise above hasn't been answered: what is the
purpose of this discussion? What is the purpose of the particular
theories, as to mechanism, in particular? NAE is not really a theory
-- as has been pointed out -- it's a conclusion about reaction site.
The *only* major problem I've seen with your theory, Ed, is this
"energy release before fusion" proposal, and that could prove
extremely difficult to test. It also is *revolutionary.* Basically,
if we are giving a presentation to the DoE, which I expect we will,
and *that mechanism* is proposed by us, we could lose them right
there, even if they were otherwise going to accept a specific
research proposal.
Now, if we already have clear experimental evidence for that theory,
the matter would be different. Not just circumstantial evidence,
*direct evidence.* Not "We don't know what else it could be, so it
must be energy release before fusion."
That *will not* fly.
*This has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is right.*
Pons and Fleischmann called the heat effect they found "fusion" and
"nuclear reaction," before they had *clear evidence* for "nuclear."
The rejection of cold fusion can readily be traced to that tactical
error.
"If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss."
"If you are going to challenge accepted theory, have *proof* ready."
Or the guards will eviscerate you. Accepted theory is *defended*,
and heavily, and especially when economic interests align with
conventional belief.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
