Ed, There is no doubt that you know more details about the LENR field than anyone on this board, and probably anyone on the planet. In fact, I am often amazed at your recall for arcane details that go back 20+ years. Staggering in a way.
But ... having said that - you have so much information to sort through, that on occasion, the mere magnitude of that massive databank will mean that any mortal will be overwhelmed to a degree, when trying to accurately put it all together and frame the "big picture" accurately. The tendency is to weight all facts in a narrow range - when scientifically there will be one solitary fact - which is of massively disproportionate significance. The homily for this situation is "failure to see the forest for the trees." There may be some justifiable reason, in the end (when we do finally understand LENR) which more clearly explains why you choose to minimalize the importance of the almost complete lack of gammas. But so far, that case has not been made. To me the lack of gammas is - by far - the overriding and highly disproportionate consideration for everything which we do not know about the field. That is why a less competent thinker like myself has no problem in confronting a superior intellect with this fact, over-and-over it seems - at least until that point in time when a better explanation comes along. I'm looking for the forest, not the trees. Jones -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms Yes Jones, expected the response. However, you might consider that I probably know more about this subject than any one in this discussion group. So, considering what I propose might be worth your time. I'm not propping or protecting. I'm simply looking at what is happening and applying the simplest explanation that is consistent with what is known in science. Anything can be explained if novel assumptions are made. I'm trying to explain without making assumptions that conflict with what is known. I assume LENR follows all the rules science knows. We are only confronted by something that is missing. I can identify the missing piece without having to explain any conflict. You might want to ask what I have discovered rather than propose what you think is happening. A difference of opinions is only valid if it is based on facts. I see no facts in your argument, only assumptions. Ed Storms On Feb 2, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Ed, > > Sorry to completely disagree that proposing a novel way to explain > the lack > of gammas is unnecessary. Surely, you knew this response was coming. > > Au contraire, a new point of view is the very essence of a better > understanding of LENR. That proper understanding must be novel, > almost by > definition since it has not been addressed adequately in the past. > > The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there > are no > gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which > your theory > proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. > > From there on, we are in new physics territory, and it is counter- > productive > to attempt to prop up the wall of conventional understanding, in > order to > protect a crumbling foundation. > > Once again, we must agree to disagree. Did you really think it would > be > otherwise? > > Jones > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms > > Bob and Jones, > > The LENR reaction is KNOWN to produce radiation. However, this > radiation has too low an energy for most to get out of the device. The > main radiation is photon, which is the only way LENR can dissipate the > energy, and this is hidden in the apparatus. Proposing novel and > imagined processes is unnecessary. Yes, the source of heat is from H > fusion which I propose makes D. It is not from transmutation. This > process can be explained very simply without using novel assumptions. > The ONLY unknown requiring assumptions is HOW the energy is dissipated > as low-energy photons. The unknown is not in what happens but how it > happens. We need to discuss the HOW. > > Ed Storms > On Feb 2, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> From: Bob Higgins >> >> The Demron specification says that it reduces the 662 keV >> gamma from 137Cs by only 1% (not an attenuation factor of .01, an >> attenuation factor of 0.99; I.E. almost no attenuation) which would >> be >> expected. >> >> Yes, this material is not very effective for shielding gammas - at >> least for the type of reaction (proton addition) which is suggested. >> Furthermore, the alternative claim of some kind of leak-free photon > attenuation or thermalization of gammas is a joke. No way. >> >> In short, by now it should be obvious to everyone who follows LENR >> that there are three important factors to rationalize. >> >> 1) The operative reaction does not produce gammas ab initio, nor even >> bremsstrahlung (and therefore cannot be related to a known nuclear >> reaction) >> 2) The Hagelstein explanation, or a version of it, where energy is >> released in staggered small packets, could apply but it is an >> extreme long >> shot - as even Hagelstein acknowledge that this is a violation of >> CoE and >> could never happen without some gamma leakage. >> 3) A new kind of nuclear reaction involving hydrogen, previously >> unknown or under-appreciated in physics as being exothermic, is at >> the core >> of LENR. >> >> Logically, #3 seems to be the only valid choice from my perspective >> - with >> the proviso that it could involve inner electron orbitals in some >> way, and >> thus be related to ZPE as the energy source (since ZPE is very >> relevant to >> electron dynamics in atoms) without the necessity for mass -> energy >> conversion. >> >> Jones >> >> <winmail.dat> >
