Begin forwarded message:
> From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > Date: February 27, 2014 2:15:33 PM MST > To: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> > Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > > Bob, > > While what Axil describes are not unconventional theories in physics, they > have no relationship to LENR. That is the problem in physics these days, any > idea can be applied to LENR no matter how unrelated to reality it might be. > The justification being that QM is a world unrelated to common logic or > experience in which anything can be justified if the right formula is > applied. To a large extent, this attitude is a self-serving way to avoid > having to justify why the ideas make so sense outside of complex math. > > The situation in LENR is a good example. A collection of conflicting ad hoc > assumptions are made and these are taken seriously by people in physics even > when they lead to direct conflicts with experience, with basic laws of > Nature, and even with each other. I'm of the opinion that physics needs some > serious house cleaning, a process that is rejected just as new ways of > thinking were rejected before QM was introduced. Physics, as well as all > human activity, gradually gets corrupted by ad hoc assumption, poorly defined > words, and concepts based on authority figures. As a result, the old needs to > be periodically swept away with a fresh start. LENR has the potential to do > this, but only if the old ideas are abandoned. I see no effort to do this in > these discussions. > > Ed Storms > On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > >> Ed-- >> >> Thanks.--I'll have some additional (later today)comments on the issue of >> increasing entropy in a quantum system, as well as, the energy levels and >> conservation of energy associated with nuclear reactions coupled via >> electromagnetic forces (considered for chemical reactions) to a quantum >> system consisting of molecules atoms, electrons, nuclei and the quarks that >> make up the nuclei--i.e., all the particles virtual and real-- that are >> "known to exist per conventional thinking in physics. >> Many of the theories Axil had brought forth for information are not >> considered to be unconventional physics by most of the World. >> >> Bob >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Edmund Storms >> To: Bob Cook >> Cc: Edmund Storms >> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:08 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, >> >> Bob, whatever happens in a chemical structure must be consistent with the >> laws of thermodynamics and with the energy levels available in such a >> structure. Any condition able to initiate a nuclear reaction by overcoming >> the Coulomb barrier must apply energy that is not available and if made >> available would destroy the structure. These facts are a major source of >> conventional rejection of the claim. An explanation MUST find ways to avoid >> these limitations. This is possible, but not the way explanations are >> presently proposed. Because this argument is so far removed from >> conventional thinking in physics, a book is required to make the case, which >> I'm presently writing. >> >> Ed Storms >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Bob Cook wrote: >> >>> Ed-- >>> >>> You stated-- >>> >If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually >>> >observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. >>> >>> What limitations do you have in mind? >>> >>> Bob Cook >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Edmund Storms >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Cc: Edmund Storms >>> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, >>> >>> Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can >>> say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not >>> acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various >>> esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the >>> requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and >>> observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is >>> actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, >>> throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As >>> a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is >>> known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> >>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>>> The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is >>>> enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. >>>> >>>> The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most >>>> theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. >>>> >>>> To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly >>>> complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true >>>> essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to >>>> arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant >>>> looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men >>>> were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who >>>> feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the >>>> tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says >>>> the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the >>>> elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant >>>> is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a >>>> solid pipe. >>>> >>>> >>>> The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of >>>> you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the >>>> different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the >>>> features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must >>>> put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. >>>> >>>> Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why >>>> there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to >>>> just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. >>>> >>>> We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and >>>> groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must >>>> keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and >>>> not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole. >>> >>> >> >> >
