On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Ruby <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 7/21/14, 1:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Despite his expertise, or perhaps because of it - Storms appears
to be misguided about Pd-D being relevant for Ni-H. In the
opinion of many, there are better explanations, and they should
be heard without the observers publishing their own book. That is
what forums are designed for. There is no way to be supportive of
a book that marginalizes all three of the best remaining hopes
for commercialization of LENR – Rossi, Mizuno, and Mills, and
that is the problem in a nutshell.
Therefore and again, if anyone can indeed show evidence of this
kind of fusion “data rules”. We cannot go beyond the hard facts
and the data available, and as of mid July 2014 there appears to
be no meaningful probability that fusion of protons into
deuterium can be involved in any of the best experimental work
being done.
For commercialization to be a reality, and for the technology to
be efficient and maximized, a theory of LENR must be found. This
does not marginalize research and engineering efforts. It helps
these experimental efforts by moving the hunt for a theory forward.
If there are "hard facts and data" on BECs forming at high
temperature inside LENR reactors, or any of the other theoretical
constructs, we must make that available - and show the
relationship to the twenty-five years of data generated so far.
If there are no hard facts to replace assumptions in these
theories, It would appear that there is as much evidence for
fusion of protons into deuterium by default. And, if Storms'
logic is able to finish the job, then he is ahead by one length
only. Only testing will tell.
We should ask: What should these tests be? How can we achieve
these answers?
That reaction of protons fusing to deuterium is a cornerstone
which Ed has chosen to build on for Ni-H, so all we can do for
now is disagree - and wait for better data.
The book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction focuses on
Pd-D systems because of the mountain of data that few look at
twice. Also, because Storms makes the case for the Pd-D and Ni-H
( and all transition metal hydrides) generating the same LENR
process, he writes how to make it happen in Pd-D, but keeps the
Ni-H info close to vest for use in his lab.
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.
*From:*Peter Gluck
- a destructive and practically unmanageable process based on
cracking cannot be basis for a commercial technology;
Peter, if a nanocrack is indeed the NAE, then the idea would be to
manufacture nanocracks, not leave them to be created by chance, as
has been the case so far.
- Pd D and transition metals H processes are different and not D
+D and H +H, Mpther Nature do not accepts such constraints
This is speculation. I would like to see this figured out one way
or the other. How do you do that?
- Pd D is technologically dead if wet, electrochemical
A mug of coffee is bad enough near my computer.
- the LENR+ processes (DGT, Rossi) seems to work outside this theory
If nanocracks are the NAE, and if the process works through
hydrotons, then the proprietary processing of the nickel surface
would be expected to make nano-spaces for the hydrogen to fill.
I know for sure- the book is excellent as all publications of Ed,
but we still have to wait for a chain of theories explaining LENR.
I can only hope the actual questions are addressed. A theory of
LENR should be at the top of the list on
things-to-do-for-nuclear-scientists-this-year if we want to
maximize the technology. Storms takes the approach of looking at
the data, finding commonalities, and applying logic. Judging by
the state of LENR theory today, and the lack of one, how could
that be bad?
Ruby
Peter
