Let me get it right, so essentially you are saying Ed's theory is "not all its is cracked up to be"? - Davy Crockett, 1835
http://www.knowyourphrase.com/phrase-meanings/Its-Not-All-Its-Cracked-Up-To-Be.html The world needs more humor. Stewart On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Ruby > > > Jones, there are five different theories that are currently isolated > islands in a sea of perpetually prototype technology. No one agrees on > anything, and there is no discussion about the assumptions in each theory, > about how those assumptions are plausible, or not, and how the twenty-five > years of data is expressed in each of those theories. There is no > discussion about hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion as predictions are > few. > > As an advocate, I want to see some serious discussion about these issues to > get this thing figured out. I don't care which theory is ultimately chosen. > I want a technology and some new lifestyle options! Storms raises good > questions. I can only hope egos are dropped, poor communication skills are > forgiven, and the smart people in the room do something tangible to make > LENR a reality. > > > > Yes it is frustrating but the glimmer of hope is that our deep level of > frustration, shared by almost everyone on this list, points directly to the > emerging answer. > > > > And - we appreciate your work as an advocate, Ruby. Egos and poor > communication are part of the problem which you are addressing. But smart > people are involved, needy and smart; and with more data – the correct > answer(s) will emerge. We are on the cusp of that in 2014, and thirsty for > more accurate data. That there was really nothing new in Storm’s book, > especially new data - is part of the frustration level. He has done such > good experimental work is the past, that there was an expectation of a > breakthrough coming from his Lab and not from his Library. > > > > But that overall answer – as to which theory is correct - is an answer that > will not please everyone, and perhaps not please anyone - since the correct > answer will simply be something closer to “all-of-them” instead of > “one-or-the-other.” > > > > That is too glib, so let me explain. There are indeed at least five good > theories or partial theories - more like 12 if we count “facilitating > concepts” as a theory, of which Ed’s is but one, but they are not “isolated > islands”. Many of them, even all of them interact, and will probably be > shown to be partially active in the same experiment. > > > > The good-news / bad-news for Ed Storms book is that the NAE observation > could be among the most active, seen in almost all experiments… ! hurray ! … > but the bad news is that Storms’ further assertion of protons fusing to > deuterium could be active in only a few ppm – almost never. If true, this is > hurtful to Ed, who has convinced himself that he alone has this problem > figured out. Thus he is not happy with the criticism. Same for W-L in that > some ultra-cold neutrons are likely to be found, but their explanation is > grossly insufficient. Same for Rossi-Focardi – in claiming nickel > transmutation. > > > > Rossi is already backing-off ANY theory, including Focardi’s, since he has > better data – not yet shared. Do not sell Rossi short. He is a cantankerous > genius, but well-read, and Storms made a mistake is not adding an entire > chapter on Rossi and Mills. It would not surprise me to learn that Rossi > reads this forum. And although nickel > copper is a reaction which could > happen occasionally, it is probably down there in the ppm range, about the > same as Storm’s P-e-P. But it explains Piantelli’s oddball results better > than he can. > > > > LENR is a complex multi-layered phenomenon in which most of the theories > could be partially relevant to one degree or another. QM is about > probability. The GUT will simply integrate them in a new way, when it > happens. Randell Mills’ orbital shrinkage (in several versions - coming from > observers other than Mills) will be involved - and that species which is > created could ironically lead directly to Storms’ preferred reaction… and to > other LENR reactions. But that outcome does not please Mills since it is > nuclear, and minimizes CQM. Thus neither of those of the competing theories > is wrong and neither is adequate, and more troubling - this same interplay > is happening with many other “partly correct” theories at some significant > percentage. QM is not for wimps. BTW - Storms was out of character to “dis” > quantum tunneling. I find that most bizarre. > > > > Inherent and unfolding complexity is the name of the game. It is > anti-Ockham. It turns off everyone, in general, and thus the uber-concept of > a multi-faceted, intertwined GUT is not popular. But think about hydrogen in > general – it is 90+% of the Universe. Can we really expect it to be simple? > Since no single theorist can make a name for himself everyone seems to focus > on a niche, and pretend that they can cherry pick data from various places, > but in the end – the best answer will become obvious. > > > > And most surprising: much of that correct answer is now hidden in plain > view. > > > > Jones > >
