I had not intended to get involved with this field, but stumbled into it
when I became aware of some experimental results that did not fit into
the conventional picture. Once I dipped my toe into the water I quickly
came to realise how much information was available, some of which did
seem to provide a pointer that might explain what had been seen. I have
hypothesies on this and other scientific things, some of which I have
been working on for over 30 years, but it is my custom when explaining
them to other people to finish with "But I may be wrong". I hope this
means that I can give up opinions if circumstances dictate.
I find it also useful to be able to say "I understand your hypothesis,
and it may be right (indeed it may well have advantages), but for the
moment science is probably best served if you continue with your
hypothesis and I with mine, and hopefully experimental evidence
suggested by our two hypothesies will be such that we find out who was
right before we die".
Nigel
On 03/02/2014 16:49, Edmund Storms wrote:
Nigel, far more information is available than most people realize. My
present book has 750 citations to essential information. How many
people do you think have read these papers? My data base contains 4700
papers, which is more than available on LENR.org
I'm trying to apply the fewest number of assumptions as possible to
all observed behavior. I find that this is possible without violating
any laws of nature and without introducing novel mechanisms. I can
predict a whole range of behavior that can be looked for to test the
model. Some of this behavior has been seen and is unexplained and
some would be expected but ignored. The phenomenon has only a few
novel features that I have identified. The rest can be explained by
accepted laws of nature. Unfortunately, this requires a book length
justification because acceptance requires a person to give up strongly
held opinions.
Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say
definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying
mechanism. It seems likely that at least some of the different sets
of experimental results will have a common underlying mechanism, and
it is well worth trying to make progress by looking for common
factors that might point to possible underlying mechanisms. But
there may well be outliers that dont fit in, which may, or may not
indicate that it is hopelessly wrong, or there might be multiple
mechanisms However a hypothesis should suggests some novel
experiments (ie is to a degree testable and can make predictions)
which, as has already been said, is the whole point of a
hypothesis. If it does not then it is of no great help.
I feel that to state categorically at the moment that there are X
underlying mechanisms is akin to stating that you can fit X angels on
a pinhead.
Nigel
On 03/02/2014 15:19, Jones Beene wrote:
*From:*Axil Axil
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look
deep enough.
That is absurd.
There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In
fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of
hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.
