On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:35 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I agree with what you are saying Jed. LENR would have long ago been
understood had the theories that were current in physics been able
to explain it.
Dave, this is not the reason LENR has been rejected. The two basic
reasons are:
1. People expected LENR to behave exactly like hot fusion. When it
did not have the expected radiation, the claim was rejected. The
claims of LENR not being consistent with laws of physics is only based
on the laws that apply to hot fusion. No conflict exists with the
basic laws of physics other than the conflicts in several of the
proposed theories.
2. The second reason was the inability of critical people to replicate
the claim. Now rejection is based on complete ignorance of what has
been discovered.
We need the open minded thinking that is seen in vortex to
eventually hit upon the idea that leads to success.
The process is not like playing poker and hoping for a good
combination of cards. Many very smart people who have studied the
effect for years are trying to put the pieces together. A discussion
resulting in random ideas having no relationship to what has been
observed will have no value and the result will not be accepted by
anyone of importance.
Of course, it is important to have the knowledge contained within
the minds of those that have been struggling for years on the
problems. They bring common sense to the table and they should
easily be able to point out flaws in new concepts and ideas if the
evidence points in other directions.
Yes, and that is what several people have been trying to do, but you
see how little success they have.
It would not be too surprising for a young kid to come up with the
key concept in his shower one day. One of us older guys might get
lucky as well, but we tend to be too set in our ways!
Old guys are set in their ways but they also have knowledge, which
young guys lack. Somehow a happy medium must be found.
I encourage others to open their minds and let ideas flow out. It
is important to keep from discouraging free thought in situations
such as this.
I'm not trying to discourage free discussion and new ideas. I'm trying
to discourage ideas based on ignorance.
Ed Storms
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li-battery
fires
Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
First, most people believe Rossi is a fraud and cannot be believed,
but they will nevertheless believe him when he claims his heat
results from transmutation of Ni.
I believe those are different groups of people. Where there is
overlap, the person is saying "assume for the sake of argument that
Rossi is telling the truth . . ."
As Lou suggests, we need a method that produces the effect reliably.
This goal is being sought but it must be based on a useful
understanding of the process. A useful understanding must be based
on what has been observed and how we now know Nature to function.
Generally speaking yes, but there have been a few discoveries that
were novel and unprecedented, such as x-rays and high temperature
superconductors (HTSC). As I understand it, to explain x-rays,
physicists had to overturn a lot of established physics. Last I
checked, HTSC has not been explained at all.
Until we do explain cold fusion, the possibility remains that it has
almost no connection to previously established physics. That would
be something along the lines of the Mills effect or zero-point energy.
I think it goes too far to say that an explanation "must be based on
what has been observed." Revolutionary discoveries such as the x-ray
may be increasingly rare, but we cannot rule them out. To say "how
we now know Nature to function" goes too far. It is only how we
think we know. It can always be wrong. This is described in many
books about the philosophy of science. Physics seldom changes these
days, but I think that is a cultural problem. There are no
revolutions because the physicists ignore anomalies.
- Jed
