From: Jed Rothwell
Jones Beene wrote:
My impression is that NASA has done significant work with
surface plasmon effects and is absolutely convinced that they are such a
breakthrough (in other fields) that they are willing to overlook the
problems as they pertain to electrolysis LENR. . . .
Ah. That sounds a little less assertive than your previous
comments about the W-L theory. Do I sense that their high opinion of the
theory gives you pause? That would be reasonable.
Yes and no. A higher opinion would only be true in the event that one
chooses to write-off most of the history of the branch of LENR which deals
with non-plasma electrolysis as essentially meaningless. In fact, even
though some of the best (in terms of robust output) results seen in the past
were with plasmas, including Mizuno's glow discharge, there are still
excellent results that indicate that a plasma is not necessary. That state
of affairs should indicate that plasmons are optional, but in the case of
NASA - there is no option.
In the end, if you are trying to put space-vehicles into orbit, then it is
crystal clear in looking at the history of the field - that there were
kilowatt level at low COP with plasma, whereas Pd-D were subwatt to watt at
high COP. Thus, it is a no-brainer- NASA want the kilowatt levels, and the
low COP is not a problem ... at least so long as the power is well above
"chemistry" (burning liquid oxygen and hydrogen).
It would be like NASA saying to cold-fusion proponents: you got it mostly
wrong (from our perspective) from 1989 to 2007 but now that we have
discovered a way that robust gain "can happen" with plasmas, because of our
brilliant results with plasmons, we now believe that the "new field" of LENR
is valid. As to the "old field" - who cares?
Since electrolysis was the major part of LENR for two decades, it is
doubtful that you, Jed Rothwell in particular, would want to encourage this
mind-set. But a young scientist at NASA would not object in any way to this
characterization. They are only interested in what they can use for their
main agenda: propulsion. Almost none of agenda relates to electrolysis, or
to Pd-D. They certainly do not want to be dependent on a rare metal and an
expensive isotope.
In effect, NASA is saying that yes- we think the surface plasmon effect and
plasma LERN is not only valid, but possibly is our best option to get beyond
combustion chemistry... even though most of the historical validation does
not employ a plasma.
Now, the next step in our "deconstructing NASA" analysis is this: is the W-L
theory simply at the head of the list by default, or is it independently
valid in being able to cover all the results going back 24 years ?
At this point, there is little hesitation on my part in opining that NASA
has chosen W-L by default. Despite its problems, it fits into NASA' agenda.
BUT... since it was the only theory available to incorporate the plasmon
effect, it has a foundation of sand. NASA will drop it in a heartbeat if
(when) it is found not to be valid, which will be soon unless the proponents
can come with real data instead of anecdote.
Of course, W-L have shown a remarkable ability to instantly modify details
on demand, so who knows that they cannot evolve the theory, and stay one
step ahead of everyone else?
One suspects that they will gladly drop a core detail - such as the
ultracold neutron, when it appears that it is doing more harm than good.
This could be tomorrow.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
