Jones and Ruby--
Both of your remarks are right on. It strikes me that as a generalization, there are theorists and experimentalists. The two do not easily mix. (There may be a few exceptions like Tesla and Fermi.) IIt takes an impartial entity to direct both. The egos go with the theoretical folks and the unbiased desire to understand what nature presents to the experimentalist. Ideas are related to egos. Experimentalists have bigger intuitions and are more female brains in that respect. With the Manhattan Project it took both types with an overwhelming driver to meld the two together. The same was true for the development of naval reactors a little later. In one case it was Leslie Groves and the other it was Hyman Rickover that insisted that the two types get together quickly--about 4 yeas in each case to make a “success”. I think that Rossi realizes this and is much more of the experimentalist type, but has learned to coordinate with the others needed to get to a good invention. I wonder about Mills and others hoping to inflate their ego further. Your comment that the Windom Larsen pair do not want additional experiments run is a real identifier as to their MO. It is unfortunate that the US government can not get to the decision to develop the LENR as a National project. The problem is it would interfere with too many geese laying golden eggs, in spite of the public good. Vorts know this in detail. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Ruby Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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 r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
