At 07:13 PM 2/19/2013, Edmund Storms wrote:
I will ignore the nit-picking and focus on the important points Abd
raised.
Sensible.
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.
At some point it could be useful to explore it, to accurately
specify the difference. But not yet.
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.
Theories have been proposed for just that purpose, on occasion. Let
me agree with Dr. Storms that this is an error, if that's the
purpose. Used in such a way, theory, when the evidence isn't yet
strong for it, has the opposite effect.
A theory allows the process to be made
reproducible and brings the process under control.
That's the useful goal, agreed.
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 do have a disagreement here. I agree that useful theories are
probably necessary for "bringing the phenomenon under control." It's
also possible that someone will stumble across a technique that does
this, without theory (or, sometimes, *in spite of theory*. Wrong
theory can lead to new tests that happen to reveal what's needed.)
So I'm agreeing on "commercially useful," only crossing the t as to
a possible exception.
As to "accepted," though, that's a very unnecessary limitation.
There is another route to acceptance, that does not depend on
commercially useful applications being available, and that is
through the ordinary process of science. We *think* that this
process has been corrupted, but that thougt has been blocking us for
over 20 years. I'm not saying that it hasn't been corrupted, it has,
but that focusing on this has distracted us from what we have needed
to pursue, and it caused a peculiar deafness to be common in our
community, all for very understandable reasons.
So I'm disagreeing that theory and the possible consequent control
of the reaction, are necessary for the acceptance of cold fusion as
a reality. That is susceptible to ordinary evidence, and that
evidence exists and has been poorly communicated. Dr. Storms has
done part of this job with his review, but more is necessary that
his review did not -- and could not -- address. Back to the point of
this thread:
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.
Yes. We already agreed on this. What needs to be explained. As to
*that*, we disagreed.
There are billions of things that need to be explained. It will take
forever. There is, in fact, one thing that *centrally* needs to be
explained. Not many. If it is explained, the rest may fall into
place, or not.
I'm trying to focus on logic, information, and laws that are needed
to
attempt the process of understanding.
Yes. However, we all have a tendency to assert what we believe,
which is distinct from what we know. I think you are aware of the
distinction, because you organized your book around it.
However, your book was general, the Science of Low Energy Nuclear
Reaction. Is there only one LENR? How would we know? In fact, we
know of at least two, and probably more. There are at least two
approaches to LENR, that is, nuclear reactions at low energies.
There may well be more.
As for my theory, I have created a logical structure based on what
needs to be explained using as few assumptions as possible.
Yes. You have been successful with this *except for one step, the
final and least established of what you proposed.*
I've suggested that you "black-box" that step instead of trying to
figure out and suggest what is in the box. However, you can do that,
as long as you don't contaminate the rest of your theory by linking
the "inside" with the rest.
The *only* conflict with known physics is what you propose is inside
the box. And most of your theory will almost certainly be verified,
precisely because it was solidly based on What is Known about cold
fusion.
Apparently you have some need to "complete" your theory. Yes,
without the specific mechanism, the theory is incomplete. But that's
the situation we face everywhere. No theory is ever totally complete.
"By an as-yet not understood mechanism, the energy from deuterium
fusion to helium is released as small quanta, without significant
charged particle or other radiation or other products than helium."
If you say "after fusion," "or with fusion," then there will be
objections about alleged impossibility, and if you say "before
fusion," you will face an even more obvious and simple-to-understand
objection about alleged impossibility. And you are not prepared to
establish the distinction. You are balancing impossibilities, and
choosing the one that seems, *to you*, to be less impossible.
It won't fly, Ed, until and unless the experimental evidence exists.
Before the *necessity* is established, scientists are not going to
support *any* "impossible* explanation, according to what they
understand, and they may even reject experimental evidence if you
first lead them with a theoretical explanation that predicts the
evidence. Scientists are human, and we are designed this way for
very sound reasons. Frustrating, at times, but necessary.
I think you damage acceptance of your theory by including the
contents of the black box, before there is specific evidence to
distinguish the three possibilities as to the timing of the release:
before, with, or after fusion.
Even mentioning "pre-fusion release of fusion energy" may cause
physicists to totally turn off, as soon as they see it. *It doesn't
matter if you are right or not." Fleischmann was right about fusion.
The FPHE is fusion. But he came to understand that mentioning fusion
was a serious error, *because he didn't have the evidence.* And he
didn't have that evidence, not direct evidence. He had
*circumstantial evidence* only.
We very much need to understand what happened.
The theory
identifies what needs to be created in the material (gaps of a
critical size)
Yes, almost certainly. Solid claim.
and what must take place in this location to be
consistent with observation (a resonance structure containing hydros
and electrons).
Yes, almost certainly. Solid claim. Specifics not established. Note
that this claim is consistent with practically every theory I can
think of, except for the "containing electrons" part. That separates
the sheep from the goats, I suspect.
Detail: this is probably necessary to explain the FPHE. It might not
explain low-level effects, which is why I caution against requiring
that these minor effects be explained for a cold fusion theory to be
acceptable. There might be a separate mechanism for them, and there
is some evidence for that position.
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.
Right. This is the most clear statement I've seen from you, Ed, that
you have not shown how this mysterious process operates.
This is the bottom line, and, if possible, we should *all* agree on
it. How cold fusion operates, the *mechanism* is not established.
Yes, there are going to be people who say, "But it has. I published,
blah blah." "Established" means demonstrated, to the satisfaction of
a broad community, that the theory is accurate and predicts what Ed
is talking about.
I think he's over-specified what a theory must explain. A theory
that explains the conversion of deuterium to helium without major
results other than helium and heat, that can predict the function of
a well-specified and controlled environment in doing this, need not
explain tritium or NiH results, at all.
It might. It is obviously desirable if it does. But it is not
logically necessary.
My question is, Do we fight about the color of the car or do we
cooperate by designing the engine?
Neither. We establish, first, the necessity of a car before doing
difficult design work.
We already have a car. We don't need to design the engine, it
exists, it's real. Unreliable, yes, but ... it works, and if it
didn't work, we'd not be having this discussion.
How does the *car we have* work? What color *is* it, if color is
important to us?
What engine is in it? How does that engine work? How is the energy
of the engine transferred to motion?
There is no "design" in this, except for the design of experiments
to answer the questions.
Once we know this, yes, *then* we design new engines.
One step at a time, horse before the cart, knowledge above
speculation and prediction.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
