Ed, If you escaped from a black hole you wouldn't have much energy left either...:)
On Sunday, February 2, 2014, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > 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> > >
