*One key point that any successful LENR theory must address is the ways and means involved with the concentration of power. There must be a mechanism in nature that gathers weak levels of power from the ambient environment and concentrates that power to a high enough level to affect the nucleus of the atom.*
* * *Even if a candidate mechanism can happen consistent with the laws of physics, that mechanism must occur trillions of times in a second to produce the energy levels that are useful in energy applications.* * * * * *LENR theorists pick a likely energy concentration mechanism and project a technology around that mechanism.* * * *In the case of Brillouin, they have selected the Widom and Larson ultra-low energy neutron formation theory. This reverse beta decay happens when a proton transforms into a neutron. This process is known to occur on rare occasions. But the LENR theorist must account for how this primary LENR mechanism can support trillions of reactions a second. The LENR theorist must also describe how his reaction can support a positive feedback mechanism that can produce a supercritical meltdown of the supporting metal lattice, were the heat produced by the primary reaction can build on itself to account for the meltdown of the supporting metal lattice into a liquid state as seen in various LENR systems.* * * * * *Most LENR theorists completely ignore this condition because it is very difficult to explain. How can a lattice based reaction function when the lattice has disappeared?* * * * * *Be comforted and assured in the face of these seemingly impossible and conflicting dilemmas. The Nanoplasmonic theory of LENR covers all these confounding gate keeper conditions consistent with the many other miracles that surround LENR.* * * . * * * * * * * * On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>wrote: > Godes focus on theory make me feel cautious. > anyway COP of 2 have been tested by SRI, that is the only serious claim I > am aware of... > > I' afraid that like for BLP, the focus on theory may just slow down > progress. > > Anyway in the past some technology get working despite bad theory... But > recently it seems theory is too much respected and slow technology > progress, and facts awareness. Like LENR denial is an example. > > Theory is a tool, a powerful tool, but it should not be the boss. > Experiments rules. > > > 2013/9/13 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > >> Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Does anyone else see that the explanation given by Godes is pure word >>> salad having no relationship to reality. The description is in direct and >>> basic conflict with what is known and accepted in science. >> >> >> I do not know enough about theory to judge that. Here is what I do know >> though. I had a long pizza dinner with these people and several other >> others. During this meal, I tried repeatedly to pin them down to some >> specifics about the calorimetry and the nature of the equipment. I did not >> want to know trade secrets. I wanted to know how big, how hot, how many >> watts in, how many out, how long has it run, how did they measure it. I got >> nothing. Nuuu-thing but blah blah blah about theory and about their earlier >> unrelated technical triumphs. That gave me a bad feeling. >> >> Maybe there are specifics in this video. I have not watched the whole >> thing. I can't abide any more blather. I heard hours of that already. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
