On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:
John, the other theories are in direct logical conflict with each
other and are also in conflict with many observations. I predict the
final theory will be nothing like what has been proposed.
Ed,
I'm not proposing to throw all of them into a tumbler and hope a
coherent theory emerges. But clearly certain theories are more
analogous to one another than you believe. For example your theory
and Meulenberg-Sinha Extended Lochon Model have striking similarities.
No John, the Meulenberg-Sinha Extended Lochon Model and my model are
not similar any more than apples and oranges are similar. I have
studied the Lochon model. It assumes electrons can get closer to the
nucleus than the Bohr orbit and this deep electron can hide the
Coulomb barrier. This electron energy state is only supported in
theory and has no relationship to what I propose in my model. However,
Andrew is trying to fit his theory to mine.
And cluster theories like TSC are quite compatible with the idea of
a Nano-NAE (whether crack or cavity).
The TSC does not require a crack to form and has no clear way to
dissipate the energy except from the implausible formation of Be8.
Your theory is perhaps the best at KISS, but you can't always indict
someone for using "imagination", it is simply part of theoretical
work.
By imagination I mean proposing ideas that have no support other than
imagined theory. My "theory" has support because it comes directly
from how LENR behaves, not how I might imagine it behaves based on a
quantum theory.
Even you have used "imagination" in developing the hydroton and its
particular dynamics for example. And of course certain speculations
go out on longer limbs than others, and that is when criticism can
take center stage to bring stuff back to reality.
Clearly there are differences between theories, I'm not attempting
to whitewash the issue. But to say all of them are mutually
exclusive is taking an absolutist position on a phenomenon that is,
still in many ways, not well elucidated.
However, what is well elucidated is general science and what has been
discovered about Nature's behavior. In addition, we know a great deal
about how LENR behaves. Some theories are in direct conflict with
this knowledge base. Of course, a book will be required to
demonstrate this claim.
There are still many experiments to do. You can't possibly think any
theory, including yours, is the final word do you?
No, I do not have the final word. However, I do have a better map and
I now know where to dig for the gold, which is what all theories are
attempting to discover.
Cheers.
Ed
Regards,
John
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:
Nice effort listing all the theories side by side Jones. Indeed it
is quite a smorgasbord, and the final theory will likely being some
unpredicted synthesis of two, three, or more. And that's only the
main reaction pathway, which we can then add secondary or tertiary
pathways to that involve stuff like hot fracto-fusion, Casmir
cavitation, etc.
John, the other theories are in direct logical conflict with each
other and are also in conflict with many observations. I predict the
final theory will be nothing like what has been proposed.
Regards,
John
Jones, this description has no relationship to my theory. My theory
is not evolved from fractofusion. Fractofusion results only as the
crack is formed, which generates a very brief high voltage across
the gap. My mechanism occurs after the crack had formed and has no
relationship to high voltages or to hot fusion. I propose a
structure forms in a very narrow gap that is able to dissipate the
mass-energy gradually as photon emission. The overall mechanism can
explain all observations very logically, which the other theories
can not do.
Ed Storms
* The NASA effort (US 20110255645) suggests a method for
producing
"heavy electrons" as a fusion catalyst (screening).
* The Yeong Kim (Zubarev) proposal of a BEC Bose-Einstein
Condensate
* The Takahashi tetrahedral TSC model is similar to the BEC.
* The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by
Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Focardi/ Rossi/ Brillouin/ NASA
explanation.
* Polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving
plasmons, surface phonons and photons. This is more of an "enabler"
pathway.
* Casimir dynamics, in general including a dynamical effect.
This is
also an "enabler" pathway as are other geometry constraints.
* Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from
long-lived
but unstable isotopes like potassium-40.
* RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the
strong force,
QCD and a transient state, the diproton, deriving energy from quark
or gluon
mass.
* The "nanomagnetism" ideas of Brian Ahern - which is a
formative
theory involving magnons and cyclical phase change around the Curie
point of
Ni.
* Any combination or permutation of the above - since none of
them is
mutually exclusive and most experiments cannot be defined by a single
hypothesis.
There are many more, especially variations and refinements. Pardon
me if I
have overlooked your favorite, but this is a running effort and your
favorite may appear on the next list.
