On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:07 AM, Bob Cook wrote: > Ed-- > > Your issue seems to be that various players in the LENR R&D field are not > reliable with respect to the data they advertise, particularly with respect > to magnetic fields. You may be right. However if you are, there are a lot > of fakers regarding this one basic parameter.
Bob, no claim should be accepted unless it can be studied and evaluated. No assumption should be made just because it fits with a favorite explanation. This has nothing to do with reliability or being a faker, although some people publish better data than others. People are easily fooled by what they see and frequently publish what they truly believe, but the observations are sometimes wrong. That is why peer review is valuable. > > P&F did not discuss magnetic fields, however, anyone with basic knowledge of > how an electric coil (obvious in the P&F experimental set up) creates a > magnetic field with the passage of current, can accurately deduce the > resulting magnetic field, including the field within the Pd electrode, given > the magnetic properties of Pd. Small magnetic fields are easy to create and are everywhere these days. They obviously do not initiate nuclear reactions. Of course, if the field can be made intense enough, a nuclear reaction might be initiated under very special conditions. However, so far no evidence shows that LENR requires a magnetic field or creates one when it is working. > > A question begs an answer. With you long-term, extensive exposure to the > field who do you consider are the experimental truth tellers who do NOT avoid > revealing measured parameters in their experiments so as to highlight > mechanisms that are key to understanding LENR. The only thing that can be trusted are a series of observations by different people that show the same behavior or patterns. In other words, the observations must be replicated. > > In other words, who are the reliable scientists and technologists. I could give a list, but this would be useless because everyone has reported incorrect data on occasion. The only solution is to compare what is reported. I did this in my first book and will continue the approach in the second one. This is like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Only certain pieces fit together and when enough pieces are assembled, the picture can be identified. No single piece gives this information. Ed Storms > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmund Storms" <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Cc: "Edmund Storms" <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:26 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" > > > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> From: Edmund Storms >> >> SPP may be present and important to some phenomenon, but >> they are very unlikely to have a role in initiating a nuclear reaction. >> Whatever causes LENR must be able to overcome a significant Coulomb barrier >> and at the same time dissipate MeV of energy. I see no way the SPP can do >> this. >> >> Well, Ed this thread started with consideration of the Cooper patent >> application. >> >> Fig 1 of that patent describes an experiment, which is the essence of the >> entire disclosure really, in which a light source is the only power input >> and helium is seen as evidence of LENR. > > Jones, why do you accept this as evidence? The patent does not give enough > detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. The > skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are > proven. This is not a proven claim. In addition, if simply shining a light on > a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered > long ago. This method is not sufficient or even plausible based on what is > required. >> >> If the patent is accurate, SPP is the prime candidate to be the initiator of >> the reaction since obviously light photons alone are orders of magnitude too >> weak. >> >> As for the way this can happen, the electric fields of SPP are said to be >> rather massive. Possibly this relates to local superconductivity. This is >> actually a rather elegant hypothesis which is being championed by NASA. >> >> Helium has been criticized by some outspoken observers of D+D in Pd fusion >> as being too ubiquitous to be good evidence of LENR. Krivit has made his >> "reputation" promoting this POV. It is curious that you now seem to be >> siding with Krivit on the validity of this kind of evidence, at least as it >> would apply to Cooper's claim. > > Helium has been made by at least 18 studies without ambiguity and after > careful measurements that can be studied and evaluated. Chris has not made > such measurements. The issue has nothing to do with Krivit who has no idea > what he is talking about. Why use the analysis of someone who is ignorant of > LENR and of even basic science? >> >> >> If Cooper's helium detection was valid, then it would seem to warrant the >> same level of credibility as anyone else's - and possibly more, since the >> experiment is so simple and straightforward. > > Yes, if the measurements were valid, what you say is true. However, no > evidence shows they are valid. Anyone can make claims. The only reason a > claim should be accepted is if it can be proven. Otherwise, this is a waste > of time and a distraction. > > Ed Storms >> >> Jones >> >> >> <winmail.dat> > >
