Ed,
I suppose that many initial researchers that began their work in earnest after the P&F announcement were expecting to see behavior such as they had seen in hot fusion. It would be unfortunate if they could not adjust their minds a bit to include observations associated with the new systems and perhaps that is the problem. Had cold fusion been easy to achieve we would not be here discussing the issue since anyone with the slightest amount of curiosity would be hooked with that first encounter. Maybe that is where the original dividing line appeared and it is too bad that only a few were successful in that first round. It is not entirely obvious that current physics has a good explanation for how LENR operates. Several competing theories vie for acceptance while none has been shown to be correct at this time. It would not be surprising to find that none of the present concepts prove accurate, but that will only be sorted out with time. Until that happens, no one can possibly rule out a new theory which may come about with a lot of serendipity. I sustain the thought that one day someone will present that missing link and most of us will be surprised by the implications. You have a wonderful vessel of knowledge that will greatly aid in the search for truth. Many clues are available in the historical records which you can call upon to either support or undermine fresh ideas. I have been a party to many blue sky meetings and one of the prime rules is to refrain from criticism of what we may think of as insane ideas so that they can be proposed without making the person suggesting them feel insecure or stupid. Too much criticism and the communication paths shut down which is not what is needed. Many of the vortex members have ideas that they want to have discussed in the open and it is up to you, I and the others to allow them that privilege. Why would we expect them to keep quiet unless they state accepted theory when it is apparent that that theory may not be correct? Ed, how much damage does it do for someone to propose an idea that most everyone else realizes has major problems? You are not obligated to respond and the concept will just die out in short order. We all gain by having participation of new persons and their fresh minds. Perhaps a spark will ignite a long hidden fuse and additional pieces will fit into place. This list would be totally dead if only the correct theory were allowed to be posted! I am sure that there have been many smart people working on resolution to the LENR problems over the years, but they have not been successful thus far. And, I suspect that many more smart people have decided to avoid the subject because of the perception that it is without merit. We need all the help that can be summoned our way so lets not discourage new members by making them feel ignorant. We could agree that us older folks have all the knowledge and the new guys are just fiddling around trying to find their way within the dark, but we should realize that many of the great discoveries of the past were made by very young, and not too well trained guys with new ways of looking at the sciences. How old was Einstein when he came out of nowhere with his theories? Who taught him about special relativity? I am sure that there were a multitude of older guys around that thought they knew everything that was important, but he was the one that changed science. And, once he became one of the older guys, his contributions slowed down in comparison. Don't get me wrong, I think us older guys are far smarter than the younger ones. ;) But, sometimes it takes more than knowledge to solve a problem or discover a new concept. In many cases too much knowledge actually gets in the way of problem solving. I personally find it easy to overlook a parameter that I think that I completely understand when in actuality it hides aspects that should have been taken into consideration. I am confident that you find yourself beginning at F=M*A on occasions when you find yourself facing a dead end with no way out. Only by going back to the bare basics can you proceed step by step to reach the correct conclusion. You mention Rossi as often making statements that are contrary and that many accept as facts. I agree with you that he is an interesting subject to study, but there are subtle secrets that slip out on occasions from his lair and many of these appear to contain morsels of facts. He is obviously not well versed in current physics but I can detect that he is very good at getting things accomplished. Even though I remain skeptical of his claims, it would not surprise me to find that he actually has something that one day will be proven valid. I keep my fingers crossed. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 6:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li-battery fires 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 <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li-battery fires Edmund Storms <[email protected]> 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
