Axil, It is premature to worry about understanding how LENR operates. One day it might appear very simple and we wonder why we did not understand it earlier.
One look at a microprocessor and you have to realize how complicated it is, but we know how to make them by the boat full now. My belief is that the same thing will happen with LENR, but with the exception that LENR is far simpler. The big concern that I have about LENR is whether or not it can be turned into a dangerous weapon. Again, it is premature to know the answer to this question, but that might be one reason why the government has seen it necessary to withhold funding since they know something that is not published. So for now, I think it is best to do our best to place this important technology into use. The complicated understanding will have to wait until later. My bet is that it is quite simple once you have the materials purified. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 1:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Basil Hiley Comments on Theoreticians and Experimental Science As civilization has progressed over the centuries, humanshave been creating ever-more complicated systems, from the machines we livewith to the informational systems and laws that keep our global community together.Technology continues its relentless march toward increasing complexity — offering efficiencies andbenefits that previous generations could not have imagined — but with thisincreasing sophistication and interconnectedness come complicated and messyeffects that we can’t always anticipate. It’s one thing to recognize that the advance of technologycontinues to grow more complex, making the task of the specialist who build andmaintain our systems more complicated still, but it’s quite another to recognizethat many of these systems are for most people actually no longer completelyunderstandable. Which the imminent introduction of cold fusion into our society,we are now entering an new era where even the experts who are building these newsystems do not totally understand how they work in detail. We should beconcerned that the systems that will form the very foundations of society are nolonger understandable by anybody. Such a peculiar situation should give uspause. On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: 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
