On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
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".
I agree Nigel, many variations are plausible. However, these must be
in agreement about basic features of the process. I'm looking for the
basic features all explanations must contain. Also, people need to be
guided effectively to look for the important behavior. Right now
people make the effect work on occasions and report whatever they
think is important or were able to detect.
A new phenomenon of nature has been discovered, similar to but more
important than the discovery of fission of uranium. A whole new kind
of nuclear interaction has been revealed. Getting the understanding
right is important and essential to using this energy in commercial
application.
Right now two battles are being fought. One with the skeptics outside
the field who deny funding and the other in the field about how the
process works. Mankind will not benefit until these battles are won.
Meanwhile, the consequences of using conventional energy just gets
worse. This is not a game of wits. This impacts on the future of
mankind.
Ed Storms
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.