We just have to put on those special glasses to see it! Just open up that nanophasmonics introduction.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/22/14, 7:28 AM, Jones Beene 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. > > Thank you Jones. I am a sucker for the underdog. Especially one that > could bring forward a different world paradigm. > > 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. > > I believe that the twenty-five years of data had not been properly looked > at wholly. Storms did that, and he was uniquely positioned to do that by > the fact that he had been there from the start, and he had performed > several surveys of the field over the past couple decades. McKubre was > right in saying that Storms probably knows more than anyone about the field > - including new data. So a summary from the Library is in good order. > There are so many early results that have clues to this reaction. > > He is not a mathematician, nor is he a quantum mechanics expert. He has > tried to understand things from the ground up, and look fresh at the > basics. If an assumption is wrong, no amount of quantum mechanics will > make it right. Apply math on plausible ideas that support the data, and we > can get somewhere. > > He is packaging this book and survey of theories in language that people > outside the field can understand. Looking at today's LENR theories, there > are clearly holes (the unacknowledged assumptions) that turn conventional > scientists away from this field. When the LENR community of theoriests > cannot face these holes, and discuss the discrepancies, how can mainstream > science want to jump in? Storms wants new people to start seriously > thinking about this field, and he made a book that is logically consistent > to do that. > > > > 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.” > > I don't see how any of these theories can merge. Either there is electron > capture, or there is a BEC, or a hydroton, or ..... or not. They are > completely different and unrelated ideas to me. > > > > 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. > > If that is true, I don't see it. I don't see how a BEC interacts with > low-momentum neutron creation. I am not an expert, though. That is why I > talk to the scientists and they explain it to me. Robert Godes explained > his Quantum Fusion to me, George Miley explained his swimming electrons and > clusters to me, and Storms has explained his hydroton to me. Every single > one of them had no relation to other, in their words or concepts. > > > > 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. > > Yes, he could be wrong. The difference here is that his claim is > consistent with the vast majority of data on lenr.org, and he has a > logically consistent framework to house a dozen predictions. Now is the > time to test whether he is right or wrong. > > Perhaps you could start a thread where for each theory, the initial > assumptions are listed, and the testable predictions made by that theory > are listed. That would be helpful in sifting through the facts vs. > conjectures. > > > > 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. > > Andrea Rossi is an amazing inventor and engineer and I can't wait to hear > about the results of this recent long-term test. He is primarily an > experimentalist though, and that's his strength. The transmutation idea > likely came from Focardi. As an engineer, Rossi knows to remain flexible, > and do whatever he can to move his design forward. He will use whatever > information is available, anything that he cares to set his eyes on. That > is how he succeeds. > > > > 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. . BTW - Storms was out of character to “dis” quantum tunneling. I > find that most bizarre. > > Quantum tunneling is out of the running for Storms because it was put in > the lattice, where the close-enough groupings of nuclei would require > violations in the laws of thermodynamics. > > > > 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. > > Yes, thank you Jones, I have to agree with you there. I believe it's all > there too. We just have to put on those special glasses to see it! > > OK, I got to get busy! My typing is over! > > Peace > Ruby, a working woman > > > > Jones > > > > -- > Ruby Carat > [email protected] > Skype ruby-carat > www.coldfusionnow.org > >
