I think we can agree the LENR effect is difficult to produce. Many
people have made it work, some with ease and some with difficulty.
About 800 examples are now described in the literature. However, this
success was not universal and has not revealed why it works sometimes
and not at others. This difficulty was used as a reason to reject the
claim because it justified the belief in the impossibility of the
effect. Now we know a lot more about the reality of the effect, so
that the difficulty in replicating is only an inconvenience because a
phenomenon can not be studied when it can not be made to happen.
However, this inconvenience means nothing. LENR is an ordinary
phenomenon of nature that we do not yet understand.
I'm in the process of studying all the explanations and comparing them
to what is known in LENR and in general science. The failure to make
progress in explaining LENR is easy to see and a clear path to the
correct explanation is becoming obvious, at least to me. The problem
has a solution if you know where to look.
Ed Storms
On Jan 12, 2014, at 2:43 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
Beaudette blames the US nuclear physicists , deified after Manhattan
project, used with easy experimental setup where things always works
the same...
even nuclear experimentalist are too theoretical compared to the
least chemist or biologist...
when nuclear physicist denied LENr because it could not be
replicated at 100% , ignoring it was sure replicated.
when they stupidly asked for exact replication, which in real
science is the best way to replicate artifacts, they were behaving
like rotten kind used with easy science, easy experimental setup and
perfect theory.
i don't know if US Nuclear Physicist are the only to blame.
on other subject I see the same deification of theory, of models,
with observation ignored or tweaked when they dissent with models or
theory.
2014/1/12 James Bowery <[email protected]>
I wonder what would have happened if terrorists had killed all of
the faculty of all of the Ivy League schools, including CalTech on
April 15, 1989.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]>
wrote:
The lack of realism, combined with ignorance of the theoretical
physicists was only one subfield of the war lost by cold fusion. A
more holistic view of the situationi
is necessary I daretothink.
Nobody was able to explain CF- it seemed unknown nuclear multi-
mystery phenomena with a weak correlation between nuclearity and the
essential heat release take place. However, as the experimental
results have multiplied and diversified- the seemingly inborn
weakness of bad reproducibility has fatally eroded the reputation of
cold fusion.
The usual culprits- il-willed, sadistic, stupid, stubborn skeptics-
enjoy the help of the inner. inherent flaws of cold fusion.
All these facts can be simply understood if we admit that cold
fusion was discovered before its time- when it could not been
explained or demonstrated experimentally.
It iis very sad that these problems stay still unsolved
despite heroic efforts; and this shows the efforts are not going in
the proper direction. The scientific method
ALONE cannot solve the CF's existential problems.
Peter
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]>
wrote:
I thought this was an interesting viewpoint expressed by B.J. Hiley,
David Bohms longtime collaborator, on the nature of theoreticians
and their relationship to experimental science. As he puts it:
I didn’t mind doing it because I think it’s very important if you’re
doing theoretical physics to get a feel of what it’s like in a
laboratory, making things work. I’ve heard some theoreticians
talking and it’s quite clear they don’t even know what a laboratory
is. They’ve never been in a laboratory and they’ve never tried to
get even simple bits of apparatus working. They just have ideas of
what the measurement is—and it’s nothing like that. It’s much too
idealized.
I feel this captures perfectly the character of the controversies
surrounding Pons and Fleischman in 1989. Most of the critics of
their work were theoreticians who, beyond knowing what constituted
good neutron detection, didn't know a thing about what constituted
good lab work in chemistry generally and calorimetry specifically.
As a result the majority of people threw the baby (excess heat) out
with the bathwater (nuclear products). They were silly enough to
proclaim that P and F were "working outside their area of expertise"
when in fact its likely not a single critic from the physics
community would have even know how to set up an electrolytic cell,
let alone how to upkeep and monitor one over an extended test period.
The rest of the article can be found here for those that are
interested:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/11/04/the-wholeness-of-quantum-reality-an-interview-with-physicist-basil-hiley/
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
