See my post: How to build a gamma shield Cheers: Axil On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote:
> Axil, I suggest for a theory or process, such as you suggest, to be > useful, it needs to be applied to real materials in ways that can be > utilized by people who attempt to make power by the process. If you think > nano-photonics is important, please show exactly how the idea applies to > PdD, for example. What does this idea contribute to being able to make PdD > initiate LENR more reliably? How does this idea apply to the many > conditions and explain the many behaviors? I suggest YOU apply the idea > because I have no idea how this can be done. Please show me. > > Ed > > On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > *As for my theory, I have created a logical structure based on what needs > to be explained using as few assumptions as possible. The theory identifies > what needs to be created in the material (gaps of a critical size) and what > must take place in this location to be consistent with observation (a > resonance structure containing hydros and electrons). In the process, the > model makes a series of predictions that can be used to determine if the > model is correct or not. I have identified exactly where I think the > mystery is located in the LENR process. The only thing I have not done is > to show how the mysterious process operates. But, neither has anyone else > done this.* > > I think you’re discounting the field of nano-photonics which provides a > body of theory, a conceptual tool box, and an extensive experimentation > inventory which precisely covers the condition you are interested in. > > You might be well served in looking into this field of physics for insight. > > Cheers: Axil > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I will ignore the nit-picking and focus on the important points Abd >> raised. >> >> First of all, he and I have a fundamental difference of opinion that can >> not be resolved by facts or discussion because it stems from a basic >> difference in attitude. So, I will not address this difference. >> >> However, Abd misses a basic consequence of what a theory does. A theory >> is not designed to promote LENR, to make it acceptable, or even to satisfy >> skeptics. A theory allows the process to be made reproducible and brings >> the process under control. The CONSEQUENCE of this understanding is the >> important aspect of a theory. Until we can bring the phenomenon under >> control, I do not believe it will be accepted or made commercially useful. >> We will not arrive at this understanding without using some rules and >> agreements about what needs to be explained and apply this information to a >> explanation. The only issue of importance here is whether the discussion >> contributes to this process or distracts from it. >> >> I'm trying to focus on logic, information, and laws that are needed to >> attempt the process of understanding. >> >> As for my theory, I have created a logical structure based on what needs >> to be explained using as few assumptions as possible. The theory identifies >> what needs to be created in the material (gaps of a critical size) and what >> must take place in this location to be consistent with observation (a >> resonance structure containing hydros and electrons). In the process, the >> model makes a series of predictions that can be used to determine if the >> model is correct or not. I have identified exactly where I think the >> mystery is located in the LENR process. The only thing I have not done is >> to show how the mysterious process operates. But, neither has anyone else >> done this. >> >> My question is, Do we fight about the color of the car or do we cooperate >> by designing the engine? >> >> Ed >> >> On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >> >> 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<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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.**com<cmns%[email protected]> >>> . >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/**group/cmns?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en> >>> . >>> For more options, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >> > >
