Hi Ed, 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. >
I have read your recent JCMNS articles. My difficulty with your explanation is almost identical to my difficulty with fractional hydrogen -- my intuition and my basic knowledge of chemistry and nuclear physics, picked up from reading Science News and Scientific American, suggest to me that it is unlikely that you can have a hydroton in which, after successive vibrations of the chain, the hydrogen nuclei gradually combine with the electrons sandwiched between them and give off small bursts of low-energy EMF. This seems to fly in the face of Coulomb repulsion and the large amount of motion that these particles generally undergo. Like Dave, I would expect such a structure to be dishearteningly unstable and fleeting if it ever formed at all. You must decide what value my opinion and those of others here has for you -- this is Vortex, "a big nasty nest of 'true believers' ". My sense that you've adopted an unpromising approach to dividing up the 24 MeV quantum (in the case of the Pd/D system), but this sense on my part (not really even an opinion) may have no value for you. That is fine with me, since I am well aware of the limitations of my understanding of these systems and am not offended by the thought that we could all be bat-crazy here. > 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 think you're failing to distinguish between the various sub-threads. Some of the ideas mentioned here are off the wall. I suspect that some of them are intentionally so. People are polite, though, and rather than criticizing ideas, they just pay attention to the ones that are interesting. So it might seem like we're all a little credulous (and perhaps we are). This is Vortex-L and not CMNS. It is less like a presentations at a scientific conference and more like conversation at cafe during the evenings of the conference. > 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. > Here, again, I think you're failing to read into the nuances of the various threads. Different people have different opinions, but everyone is polite (these days). I also think you could help us out a lot by engaging our ideas -- but that requires patience and more than just saying something to the effect that we're imagining things. You have to engage specific details, and you have to find the time to follow them up with even more specific details as you're challenged on the things you're challenging people on. Often people learn by this kind of back and forth. If you find the people here unpromising material, that's another thing -- we only know what we know. Eric
