Finally finished "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" over the weekend and find it to be a mixed bag - brilliant in places, but disappointing in others. There is no "cutting-edge" to be found here, if that is what you are looking for. I was, and maybe that is my problem. It can be recommended as a fine historical piece, very well-researched - but do not expect much more.
Here is my main objection to Ed Storms' book from what is admittedly a
minority point of view. It is a historical account of the first twenty years
which overlooks the importance of new work, and that Ni-H is the commercial
savior of LENR. All of that wonderful prior work with Pd-D, which set the
table for where we are now, is valuable and intuitive, but .... To be blunt,
when one is lost in time, with a focus on history, then the baggage that
comes with that viewpoint can interfere with accurate understanding of where
we are going. Palladium cannot really help us in the long run, and the best
hope for deuterium now rests with Mizuno's new work. BTW - Mizuno's
important new work is ignored by Ed and he cherry-pick data from old work
that contradicts the new. That is almost unforgiveable in a book which
promises accurate explanations.
In short, Storms is only accurate for understanding results which were prior
to Rossi and to "nano" but then falls flat - insofar as opening up the
future. The book overlooks the most important new developments in LENR, like
nanotechnology and SPP, or else fails to analyze them properly. I finished
this book wanting much more and thinking that I had already read most of it
anyway.
In 24 years of accumulated experiment, which includes Mills - the
experimental results are often contradictory, when considered in toto. When
one is looking for commonality, as in this book, a general theme should
emerge. That is where Ed's book fails - it begins with a false assumption
and ends with a theme that points us in the wrong direction. To wit:
1) Fusion of deuterium in a Pd matrix or crack strongly appears to be a
novel kind of gammaless nuclear fusion, with helium or tritium as the ash.
This is where Ed's account is authoritative and helpful. He is an expert
with Pd-D.
2) However, deuterium can participate in thermal gain without fusion,
as the new Mizuno work indicates, which work is ignored as are many
important new developments - like Cravens extremely important NI-Week demo.
3) Reactions of protons in a metal matrix (no deuterium) strongly
appears to be non-fusion, having almost no indicia of fusion, as in Rossi's
work; but it can be nuclear in the sense of nuclear mass being converted
into energy. Rossi is marginalized.
4) Ed does not to believe that the two isotopes, deuterium and protium
can entail completely different modalities for thermal gain - and so he
proceeds to lump Ni-H into a category where it is not well-suited. Thus, for
the segment of LENR which deals with Ni-H, his book is both wrong and
counterproductive, since it casts the entire sub-field into chaos for the
start by confusing two pathways as one.
5) It should be noted, in defense of point 3 that slight transmutation
is seen on rare occasion by a minority of researchers (notably Piantelli),
but it is three orders of magnitude too low to account for excess heat. When
copper is found with nickel it is in the natural isotope ratio which
statistically proves absolutely that it cannot be formed from nickel.
In short, this book is authoritative and helpful for understanding the
history of cold fusion, Pd-D and most of the experiments following in the
footsteps of P&F. That is the good part and if this is what you are after,
then do not read-on.
As for the downside, Storms overlook or marginalizes the fact that Ni-H may
not be related to Pd-D and may not be fusion at all. He emphasizes the few
findings which point to fusion, and fails to even mention contrary arguments
and weight of evidence. The two isotopes are extraordinarily different and
it makes no sense to lump them into the same modality. The bottom line for
Storms book is that it will bring you up to date to around the year 2010 -
in terms of where the field was then, but fails to move beyond that
limitation.
In neglecting to emphasize the importance of Ni-H, mention the zero point
field, nanomagnetism (or almost anything related to nanotechnology), giving
half a sentence to surface plasmons, marginalizing Rossi, Cravens, Mizuno,
Mills, and ignoring Ahern, plus - ignoring dozens of other cutting-edge
subjects, "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" should instead be
called "The History of Cold Fusion in Palladium."
But as disappointing as it was to me, it was still worth the time, and you
may agree with Ed's perspective anyway, so have at it!
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
