From: Jed Rothwell
JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely
based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles.
First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The
past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at all - is still
with us, Rossi notwithstanding.
McKubre did not mean it is a miracle. That was a joke. He meant what I said
in the next sentences:
. . . It is not likely that there are many different, totally unrelated,
heretofore undiscovered ways to generate nuclear reactions in a metal
lattice.
Why not? QM has shown us clearly Ockham was always a joke, and that atomic
processes are always far more complicated, not less complicated than what we
want them to be without QM- due to tunneling, time reversal and other
strange features. And who said anything about "totally unrelated"? Of course
they are all related by QM if nothing else.
The "undiscovered" part of the history of LENR is the key to understanding
the multiple routes to thermal gain - in what it implies about the ignorance
of the mainstream (and even about the continuing ignorance of some segments
of the LENR community, many who still reject or do not understand QM).
When the first route to LENR was discovered, the Pd-D route in 1989 - then
that discovery alone implies that other latent routes are likely to be there
- instead of less likely. This is because the first discovery affirms the
ignorance of all scientists in the first case.
It is merely an issue of vanity which makes any scientific observer think -
that because he was fooled once, he can't be fooled many times. Vanity,
vanity. That and absurd appeals to "Ockham".
The truth is that being fooled the first time makes it more probable that
the same observer (mainstream science, or even one-track coldfusionistas)
suffer from a systemic problem of analysis, which until it has been
remedied, will cause the observer to fail again and again - and consequently
miss other different, but somewhat related, routes to LENR. At least a
dozen.
Therefore and to the contrary, I think it could be very likely to be many
routes to thermal gain with H2, and in fact all the evidence points that way
- all of them unknown prior to 1989 but with the common denominator of
hydrogen isotopes, which are entirely or partially confined in a lattice,
usually involving QM tunneling. Often "confinement" will imply greatly
increased density of the reactant, loss of molecular identity, and loss of
freedom of movement.
Pd-D is very different from Ni-H, but not unrelated. QM tunneling can exist
in either case with vastly different results. Clearly Ni-H produces no
helium and usually no gammas. Clearly deuterium in nickel is less likely to
give excess heat and helium, than in Pd and nickel does almost nothing in
Pd. In no way are the reactions the same, but neither are they totally
different.
Most reactions give no gammas, others a few gammas but these cannot be the
same reaction because of the gammas. Same with transmutation. All the dozen
of so LENR "miracles" are based on the mega-miracle of QM but it is
remarkable how often this is overlooked.
Jones
