LENR = "low energy nuclear reactions"
Quoting from the vortex-L mailing list...thus spake Storms:
I view the LENR process like I would a complex machine in which all the parts have a function, but each must work with the other parts for the entire machine to work properly. No part can be examined to determine its function without considering how it relates to every other part. Unfortunately, each theory being proposed to explain LENR is applied to a different part. If a clock were used as an analogy, one theory explains the spring will ignoring the balance wheel. Another explains the balance wheel and ignores the gears. In other words, if a person proposes how the Coulomb barrier is reduced, I propose he must also provide a method for releasing the mass-energy that is consistent with the proposed lowering process. If a method to form helium is proposed, the method must also show how tritium and transmutation can be produced.
I realize many people do not consider the LENR process to be a single machine, but instead a complex mixture of independent processes. They imagine under some conditions, helium is made. Change the conditions and transmutation becomes the main reaction. Apparently some theoreticians expect tritium to form for no apparent reason. This creates a mayor conflict in how the behavior is explained and creates a basic question. Does LENR result from single basic nuclear process that occurs in the same NAE, or is LENR a collection of independent processes that occur in various locations in a material, depending on a complex collection of conditions?
The answer a person makes to this question determines the rest of the discussion. Consequently, this conflict in basic belief must be resolved before any discussion is possible. I get the impression that a great deal of conflict has been created during past discussions because this basic question is not clearly resolved and lingers as an unconscious distraction.
========= and further
More than enough information has been accumulated to provide the basis for the correct explanation and to show how the effect can be replicated without fail. Nevertheless, we are still struggling to accept a useful explanation and to make the effect work without fail because this information is not being used. If I apply the analogy of a jig saw puzzle, people are trying to assemble the picture while ignoring a large number of the pieces. The people who are attempting to create an explanation assemble a little part of the puzzle and then insist that the whole picture is like their little piece, with the interpretation of what the little piece shows being totally in the imagination. Each person has been looking at their little piece so long, they no longer have the ability to consider any other interpretation. Normally, new people come into a field of study and bring with them new insights. This process does not occur in this field because most people who could provide such a contribution are not interested. Furthermore, no contribution even from these outsiders would be useful unless the huge collection of observed behavior has been mastered, which requires considerable effect. As a result, most new ideas being debated have very little relationship to what is real. This ignorance encourages repetition of failed methods and discussions that lead nowhere.
And then we have the Rossi-types. These are people who have made the effect work but will not tell how because they want to make money from their discovery. This is reasonable, but they also have no idea how to explain their success and very little ability to find out. Of course, they do not agree, instead believing that a little more time and money will reveal the secret. Consequently, they are hoping they can figure out the secret before someone else does and makes the effect work much better and with total control. As long as most people continue to think the effect is not real and that the explanations are useless, the Rossi-types have a chance because the competition will remain weak.
So, from my viewpoint, we have three types of attitudes operating in the LENR field. First we have most people in science who have no interest and think the claims are nonsense. In the second group, we have a few people who have made the effect work, but not well enough to attract interest from Group #1. The third group consists of people who have explored various aspect of the effect with mixed success for the last 24 years. These people think they are the field. They speak for the field, judge what is real or not, and look to Fleischmann and Pons as their heros. I have to admit being in this group, while aspiring to move into group #2.
Nevertheless, I believe the field will slowly die until the Rossi- types reveal their secret and new scientific insights can be applied by people who are not committed to the present ideas. This new blood must come from outside Group #3 because this group will not accept new ideas from within, as always happens when a field of study remains isolated too long. Consequently, I'm rooting for the Rossi-types and hope they can make the effect work well enough for them to feel free to reveal their secret recipe. At that point, a swarm of graduate students, will descend on the field and start to make fast process in finding the correct explanation and the ideal application. Until then, we in Group #3 are just exploring a fun hobby with the blind leading the blind to a large extent.
Recent statements from Ed Storms RE LENR
No replies to this topic