On Feb 2, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
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.
Thanks Jones, but I have a computer that never forgets.:-)
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.
That might be the tendency, but it is not what I'm doing. I'm trying
to find the simplest solution possible with the fewest number of
assumptions.
The homily for this situation is "failure to see the forest for the
trees."
How about calling a meadow a forest because one tree can be located?
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.
I do not minimize. I state very clearly and very often that radiation
is emitted. However, the photons have too little energy to get out and
be detected. Radiation is detected when the detector is placed in the
apparatus. You ignore the fact that photons can have a huge range of
energy. What you call gamma are very energetic because they are
emitted all at once from a single nuclear event. LENR does not do
this. The energy is given off in many small quanta of energy. The
mystery is how this energy is divided into the small units. This is a
mechanism that can be tested and presently is based on evidence.
Why assume that failure to detect is a failure to exist? The detected
radiation is real and the measured energy shows that most of it would
not escape. This is not unexpected or in conflict with anything. Your
approach is like arguing that because we can get close to a nuclear
reactor, the radiation inside is equally small and not dangerous.
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.
I agree. This is the smoking gun. The challenge is to explain LENR as
simply as possible and by a mechanism that can be tested.
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.
I'm looking for a path through the forest. I agree, this is a complex
forest, but a path can be found if cliffs can be avoided.
Ed Storms
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>
