Jojo, I believe Abd to be very bright and a scholar of the history and the nuclear fusion related study of cold fusion research. History is important so you do not repeat the same mistakes. As you know I believe the primary reaction is not fusion or fission, which are only secondary reactions. Recent DGT results(from slide at ICCF) show no less than 9-12 fission and fusion products, including, He. Abd should have plenty of secondary reaction paths and branches to research. If the reactor ran even longer i believe it would have created even more products as it reacted with additional intermediate matter created.
It is easy to make jokes about something you do not understand because it is a bit unsettling, we all do it and I additionaly did it with Rossi and I am even doing it with my own theory because it does not necessarily agree with what we have been taught. Abd joked about my theory and the Papp engine. As I listen to that poor engineer Mr. Rohner (probably soon to be rich) try to explain what they are seeing I think of Abd. My theory explains it this way. 1. They create a collapse in a gasseous environment using intense, directed spark in already ionized gas. 2. That singularity created wants to instantly achieve thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium yet the coil is drawing charge from the chamber(all of that ionized gas helps conduct the charge to the coil) 3. The only way the singularity can balance its environment is to collapse additional gasseous matter to try and achieve balance within its local space. It will do this until it runs out of gas and either evaporates or can pull from something else... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0IPWmm7GDc&feature=youtube_gdata_player If you want to get additional energy from a chameleon you must create an imbalance in his world and he will transform to a gremlin and reward you. I would focus on a gasseous environment for creating/drawing lots of energy. If you want to transmute some solid matter feed the gremlin some nanopowder. On Thursday, August 16, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > I had unsubscribed and never intending to repost here again but I just > can't stand the pretentious verbal diarrhea of this self-appointed so > called LENR Expert. > > Last time I checked, science and the scientific method involves First, > coming up with a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomena, then testing > your hypothesis with experiments. And this is exactly what CE is doing. > He has come up with a hypothesis and I believe he intends to test it with > experiments. He has graciously shared his theory for peer review and > discussion. He has done the first steps of what a good scientist should be > doing. Of course, I am cognizant of the fact that his theory is new and a > little incomplete, but CE has made no pretensions otherwise. > > But instead of contributing to the discussion about the theory and > advancing our understanding, Abd has resorted to envious criticism. This > verbal diarrhea is symptomatic of what is wrong with scienctists nowadays > (not that I consider this dude to be a scientist by any stretch of the > imagination.) Too much pride and false expertise being thrown around. > This dude Abd thinks he is an expert in LENR, and criticizes anything that > he did not come up with. He did it with Axil and now with CE. Yet, he > himself has not really come up with anything to advance our understanding > of this field. Nor is he involved in any experiment that we know of, to > help explain the phenomena. Just all talk and verbal diarrhea and > criticisms and insults. > > Frankly, I am sick of all talk and no action from this dude. Though I do > not consider myself an expert, at least I am doing something to help > explain this phenomena. Much much more that what Abd has done with > his pretentious criticisms and verbal diarrhea. > > > Jojo > > > PS: Tell us Abd exactly what your expertise is. A quick google search > reveals Abd to be a college dropout who's claim to famed is that he > "studied" physics. Now, he is a wikipedia editor for Cold Fusion. So, > this is the background of our Wiki "expert". You know what my mother always > says; " Shallow waters run noisy." LOL ... > > > > > > > > Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:42:38 -0700 > > At 05:02 AM 8/15/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: > > I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it > is a little too early for that. > > Really, CE? Were you actually that naive? > > > Here is the situation. PdD cold fusion was discovered -- or rediscovered > -- over twenty years ago. There is still a lot that is unknown about the > reaction conditions and details. > > The problem has engaged many highly knowledgeable people, including > theoretical > physicists, specialists in quantum mechanics, and Nobel Prize winners. > Nobody has yet come up with a theory, to date, that is satisfying, that > successfully functions to predict experimental outcomes, particularly > when we look for quantitative predictions of any accuracy. Sometimes > theory has predicted a general outcome. For example, Miles was aware of > Preparata's theory, that predicted helium as the primary ash, when he did > his work to demonstrate the heat/helium correlation. > > But since helium was already on the table as a normal product of fusion > (albeit at a different branching ratio), this can't be seen as much of a > confirmation of Preparata's theory. And I'm not even familiar with > Preparata's actual theory, it's not given much shrift today. Most of the > early theories looked to the lattice as the reaction site, it was only > known later that the FPHE is a surface effect. > > If everyone could get on the same page this fledgling industry can generate > some serious revenue and transform the World! > > Cart before the horse, CE. We need more science, first. We need to know > more experimental results. You seem to think that the obstacle is a lack > of explanatory theory. No, it's been pointed out by many that we have too > many theories, and not enough testing. Many of the existing "theories" > have been inadequately developed to be used to make specific predictions > that can discriminate between theories. > > Really, many of these theories are only conjectures, that *possibly* this > or that phenomenon is involved. I'm not seeing anything different about > your gremlin (singularity) theory. You simply assert possibility, and you > are asserting it about a phenomenon where we don't have experimental > evidence that the phenomenon even exists, and what consequences it would > have. > > It's quite convenient for the formation of new theories. Since nobody really > knows how small singularities would behave, just make up whatever > behavior you can imagine might be so. You can then explain all kinds of > anomalies. However, producing real value, in terms of increasing our > predictive capacity, the goal of theory development in science, is quite > another matter, more difficult. > > My theory explains the following observations: > > > Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon > observations > the anomalous effect occurs in the cracks and voids of the lattice. > Collapsed matter from hydrogen ion collapse would certainly occur in > these locations due to concentrated energy charges, hoop effect and > collisions. Prof. Celani has witnessed the same effect. > > CE, this is totally made up. It's not stated why singularities would only > occur in cracks and voids. No clue is given for the actual size of the > defects. (A similar criticism can be made about Storm's theory, though he > does propose some limits. The crack cannot be so large as to allow D2 > formation, and obviously it must be larger than the lattice spacing.) > > Once collapsed matter singularities are formed they instantaneously seek > thermodynamically stable states with their surroundings. Prof. Celani > witnessed that once his metal lattice had been loaded with hydrogen and > had previously shown anomalous heat generation he could shut the system > down, transport it and it would immediately show further anom > >
