From: Bob Cook
* … I would only gloat to myself.
Feel free to gloat in a big public demonstration if gammaless fusion is
proved :-)
Side Note: There is a strange mentality, which is seen in some skeptics of
LENR – the relevant characteristic of which is that they actually suspect
(and want to believe) on a gut level that the technology is valid. They can
see that people as smart as they are, who have done the actual experiments,
believe strongly in it. Yet, they have been taught and fully believe in the
mainstream objections, often at a graduate school level. That is their
security blanket, and therefore they “need to be fully convinced” to go
against their schooling and accept a paradigm shift.
Then, if all goes well – the freshly converted true-believer can become a
minor celebrity of a sort and get their 15 minutes of fame – kinda like the
atheist who gets “saved” by an evangelist, and thereafter enjoys testifying
once a week about how great it all is.
Personally, I am not a skeptic of the excess heat of LENR, quite the
opposite, and so the underlying sentiment is not the same as the above. But
it is easy to recognized that the “easy explanation” for most believers in
LENR (as an alternative religion) is that fusion is happening, since that is
the only way they can conceive, based on their education and the word of a
few role models, to get to greater than chemical energy. And the
unjustifiable rationalizations which become necessary (for the lack of gamma
radiation) which are put forward then become part of the “read my book”
package, and are intrinsic to this easy way out. Bob Higgins objected to my
calling this “read my book” approach “brain dead” but it is only a slight
exaggeration– failure to use one’s cognitive and analytical skills to the
fullest.
The correct approach, scientifically, is seldom easy. It involves finding a
rationale which fits the facts - ALL the facts, and is repeatable in the
Lab, and moreover - makes accurate predictions. The concept of gammaless
fusion has failed us in that regard and after 25 years of failure it should
be obvious that it is almost certainly false and needs full revision. But of
course, there is still hope for those who are fully invested.
There are two basic choices, when you strip away the fluff:
1) A two miracle scenario, where the first miracle is fusion at low
input. The second and more difficult miracle is that the known amount of
excess energy is seen, but it is delivered in a completely unique way,
unlike the known reaction, and this happens 100% of the time, with no
exceptions.
2) The alternative is a single miracle, involving either a non-fusion
kind of nuclear reaction, or a supra-chemical reaction (inner orbital
manipulation), or zero point field – etc, where there is more energy
released than nuclear, but delivered in a standard way.
Aside from the issue of conservation of miracles, the huge problem for
strong believers in 1) - many of whom are contributors here, is that the
undeniable implication of 2) is that the energy available is less than
fusion and possibly limited to a low COP.
In fact, it could be no mistake that many of the best performed experiments
in the field: from Thermacore in the early nineties to the new Mizuno work,
show a COP of slightly less than 2. There is adequate reason to believe that
there is an effective limit at somewhere around this level – COP~2.
We should welcome this limitation ! Even cheer for it.
Of course, it would be great if it were more, but COP~2 is a game-changer.
Get used to it.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
