On May 1, 2013, at 1:16 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed,
I agree completely with you that a theory must be able to make
predictions that can be shown to be true and I am not aware that
such a theory has arrived. You have an interesting one which does
appears to answer many important questions. Have you been able to
demonstrate a working system that fits into your model as of this
time? If so, you need to push that concept harder for acceptance
since it is sorely needed. My understanding is that you are
proposing a theory that has not yet been thoroughly tested which
leads me to believe that it might not perform up to expectations. I
would be quite happy to find out otherwise.
Well Dave, at least one of my predictions has been demonstrated, i.e.
that tritium production is sensitive to the D/H ratio. As for how a
theory has to be judged, the approach is not like that applied to a
physics theory because LENR is not just a physics problem. LENR is
first a chemical problem because something must change in a chemical
system before the nuclear reaction can start. That change must be
identified and must be consistent with the laws of chemistry. Unless
this change takes place, the nuclear reaction can not occur. That is
why the effect is so rare and hard to replicate. This change is seldom
produced because without knowing what the required change is, its must
be caused by chance, which is not easy to replicate because so many
variables affect the process. This requirement is ignored in many
suggested explanations.
An ideal theory could be used to vary the mix of components in a
calculated manner to yield a reasonable result. Virtually all of
the systems constructed according to this ideal theory should
perform in a manner similar to the way a rocket is designed and
constructed. Other example would be automobiles or firearms which
should work most if not all of the time as predicted. But perhaps
LENR falls within the category of difficulty of semiconductor
devices. If so, a reasonable yield would have more leeway. I
suppose that we will not get a handle upon the true difficulty until
the final theory is proven.
The semiconductor device is a good analogy. In this case, it took
years and millions of dollars to discover that a few billion parts per
million of sodium would stop them from functioning. This insight was
not exactly a theory but the result of behavior observed over a long
time under different conditions. The challenge was to discover which
of the hundreds of variables was the problem. In the case of LENR,
this critical variable affects the nano level and is very difficult to
identify without the money needed to use the proper tools. The biggest
problem is knowing what to look for at that resolution. I have
suggested what needs to be present in a material for it to initiate a
nuclear reaction. Proof will only come when money becomes available to
start a search. Money will not be available until my idea is accepted.
Thus, we have the chicken and egg problem once again.
It seems likely that the current understanding of physics will need
to be modified somewhat in order to explain how and why an LENR
device operates. The basic CoE should explain the energy released
while the CoM plays its part as in hot fusion. We may find that
there exists coupling mechanisms and resonances which are not
evident in normal systems but key to LENR. The interaction of
transient matrix heating will most likely show up in some manner
since temperature affects operation.
Yes Dave, an improved understanding of nuclear interaction is
required. However, this interaction will be controlled by the chemical
environment. This environment will limit how and why the nuclear
process works. So, we need a marriage between physics and chemistry,
which has experienced a difficult courtship.
I see vast differences between hot and cold fusion systems which
suggests that a theory that handles one would be seriously stretched
if applied to the other. The temperature and density differences
are many orders of magnitude apart and the physics developed for one
might be found lacking if applied to the other.
I like the prospecting for gold analogy you use and I choose to
follow the guy that knows where the gold was located by careful
analysis. On the other hand, it might be better to build a good
metal detector to make the job easier.
Good suggestion. That is where the money needs to be applied once it
becomes available. Right now, no one can afford the metal detector.
Sometimes a redefinition of the problem yields a more sound
approach. To obtain clues during my days as a electronic design
problem solver I always asked for a description of any unusual
device behavior that did not match expectations. Many times the
engineers that were responsible for the device would neglect these
items since they did not understand why they occurred. I generally
pieced together an overall picture that included these unusual clues
as part of a final solution. You can never be quite sure what is
important and what is noise until sufficient evidence is collected.
That is my present approach and why I keep asking people to consider
all observations. Unfortunately, as you have seen, this suggestion is
largely ignored.
Maybe we disagree upon the idea of an open forum for discussion. I
would be pleasantly surprised if the key discovery needed to unlock
LENR were to directly originate from a newcomer in the field. It is
much more likely for them to accidentally hit upon a concept that
triggers the mind of one of the more knowledgeable people in the
field. A key phrase or even a misunderstood suggestion might lead
to an association that clicks. I have seen this happen in other
fields and that is why I do not want to make others feel insecure to
suggest strange and unusual concepts. No one should feel too
ignorant or afraid to contribute to our progress.
I want people to be interested enough to ask good questions and
challenge ideas. However, seeing the total picture, which is required
to find a useful explanation, requires a lot more study than most
people care to apply.
Ed Storms
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 12:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li-battery
fires
On Apr 30, 2013, at 6:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:
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.
Dave,
The question is, What does a theory have to do to be accepted? In
the ideal world, a theory must explain what is observed and make
predictions that can be tested. A theory must not conflict with
basic laws unless a very compelling reason is given. A theory must
show logical relationships between the observed behaviors without
excessive use of assumptions. Do any of the theories or suggested
explanations meet these requirements? I see very little indication
that these requirements are important to anyone. In fact, I
suggested an explanation that met all of these requirements, but
this was either rejected or ignored. Consequently, I have very
little hope for any theory being accepted any time soon.
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?
Of course, personal attack should not be permitted and ideas should
be discussed objectively. However, what benefit results from
allowing ideas that have no relationship to observed behavior or
known laws of Nature to dominate a discussion? Scientific
discussion is different from political or religious discussion.
Scientific discussion tries to understand a reality that can be
tested; one that actually exists. This reality is not just an opinion.
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!
OK, if the purpose is to shoot the bull and just enjoy sharing
opinions, then the goal is not a search for reality. Then no one
should expect anything of lasting value to result from the
discussion, other than the fun. People are just talking for the fun
of talking. This is ok and worthwhile, but the process should not be
confused with trying to gain knowledge.
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.
How does a person avoid making an ignorant person feel ignorant? If
I entered a group of people who are knowledgeable about, say
biology, I would feel ignorant. I would not expect my opinions to
have any value until I listened and learned. I would ask questions
and not make statements. I would expect to be shown the errors in my
thinking. Gradually, I would learn what was need to have a useful
opinion. This does not seem to be the approach taken when CF is
discussed. People seem to think any idea is equally valid, that one
person's opinion is as good as any other. Since no theory has been
accepted, any idea is equal to any other idea.
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.
We are trying to explain a phenomenon of Nature. Many examples
exist of similar occasions in the past when observation did not make
sense in terms of what was believed. Radioactivity, X-rays,
superconductivity presented a similar difficulty. In contrast to
LENR, each of these unexpected behaviors could be easily duplicated
and examined at leisure. LENR shows itself only on occasion.
Consequently, all the lucky occasions must be treated like nuggets
of gold that are used to locate the source by noting the patterns
created by their discovered locations. Rather than using all the
nuggets, people will take the location of one nugget and from this
one finding draw an imaginary map about where the primary source
might be located. Of course, this might result in a lucky guess.
Unfortunately, when people start to dig where their guess says the
source is located, they find no gold. Using this analogy, I think
Rossi has found a rich collection of nuggets but not the main
source. In addition, he has no interest in telling any one where
this collection is located. In fact, he might even give false
directions to keep people away.
So, if you were a prospector who had explored the gold field and
came upon a new guy wondering aimlessly looking for gold, what would
you do? Would you try to tell him where the previous nuggets were
found and correct him when he became lost, or allow him to continue
wondering aimlessly? Would you listen to his wild ideas about where
he thinks the gold is located or encourage him to look in a
different place, at the risk of making him feel ignorant?
Ed
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 <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
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 <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