LENR- THEORIES OR PRINCIPLES?

For LENR, lots of theories, few principles.

Semantics is not quite an exact science; words have different and somewhat fluid meanings. A congress of philosophers  could not tell us what are the differences between a theory and a principle however when we are moving in a familiar territory of knowledge where theories abound and principles are not considered relevant & important- we can tell the ones from the others quite easily- just by looking to them; remember the pragmatic definition of pornography. “I know it when I see it”- principle.

In the VUCA world of LENR, there can be intermediary states

or hybrids of theories and principles. Theories are knowledge-oriented, more precise and detailed than principles, while principles are action-oriented, implying change.

Theories are interesting and passive, principles active and useful- as a somewhat general rule.

To the faithful readers of this blog is obvious that I have a passion to discover basic principles- see the “Twin Peaks’ and the “Sue-Ellen principle” (combined with the Kaltwasser doctrine) the Principle of the Chief Engineer and, especially the realistic and very practical technical principles of Defkalion Green Energies. My personal techno- moral principles-slogans as:

“I think, I exist; I decide, I live; I solve problems, I live with a purpose” and

“My favorite sport is swimming. My favorite metasport is swimming counter-stream”

are – at least for me, proofs that principles are important. In the present case we need to find those principles that could contribute to the solutions of the wickedly wicked problems of LENR.

But let’s discuss about LENR theories at first:

May I tell here what everybody knows- theories have not achieved much, have not explained even basic facts, are not guiding experiment, do not have problem solving power.

Despite these non-successes, many theories are beautiful impressive logical constructs and their authors plus some fans like them, promote them and oppose them to the competition.

It happens that just now, a new theory, created by the most knowledgeable and reputed author of the LENR field is fighting

for general acceptance and supremacy, having an excellent press and a lot of supporters. It is discussed on the forums, in many threads and it is the core idea of a book written just for the sake and for extended/deep presentation- of the theory- w

by dr. Ed Storms. You can buy the book, “Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” from here: http://www.infinite-energy.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2&products_id=287

and I advise you to do it- the qualities of the book are more important than any and all possible weaknesses of the new theory. The book is surely a treasure both for old cold fusionists like me happy to remember the great events of the past and to

young LENR researchers trying to build a great future for a most interesting, however very special domain of Science.

It happens that I have followed the creation of Ed’s theory from its embryonic stadium when it was just a sketch of a paper; and I disagreed with parts of it- all the time... 

However both the book and the theory will be inspiring; the book after a pleasant study, the theory after its evaluation and dissection (to which I contribute here; at least I think so). 

The book has to be taken seriously because it will surely be taken very seriously (not a tautology!) by the young people entering the field due to the reputation and authority of its creator and the high quality of his writing.

My history with the new theory:  I have learned long ago that Ed Storms is a leading personality of Cold Fusion/LENR and therefore I have taken in consideration the theory as soon as it was formulated. These writings are more than 2 years old:

SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING ED STORMS’ NEW LENR THEORY.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/some-questions-regarding-ed-storms-new.html 

Ed Storms' answers to 5 questions. Questions No. 6 and 7

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/ed-storms-answers-to-5-questions.html

Ed has answered patiently to all my questions- as you can see. However, I was not convinced by his arguments, as we will see later. I was quite stubborn, Ed had the impression that “we are looking at Nature in very different ways”- and I had to agree.

For those unable to understand his theory, the answers cannot be supplied in few words, so he has decided to write this book.

THE CONTEXT/BACKGROUND OF MY ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY

Personal note: in 1970, when I became the Head of the research laboratory for PVC and chlorine compounds at OLTC HIM  Ramnicu Valcea I delivered a short discourse  about strategy and future.  Toward the end I have tried to say something quotable:

“I know well differences in opinion are attracting intelligent people and are repelling only those who are not so!”

My coworkers liked it. Then I have added:

“Take care, friends! You can do many things with me, but for your own sake, beware contradicting me!!!”

Now, more than 40 years later I am increasingly convinced that the first part was one of the greatest idiocies I have ever said.

People are unbelievable conflictual and take their opinions

very personal- “Ma theorie, c’est moi!”

However I dare to claim that I am an exception to this, being really tolerant to different and even opposing views re any issues with no ethical implications.

For the present case my disagreement with Ed Storms theory described in his book, is just the tip of an iceberg and the body of this iceberg is the major contradictions from this “frame”: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/07/past-cold-fusion-versus-future-heni-in.html 

The hybrid scientific-technological approach

The basic contradiction is regarding the Solution of the LENR commercialization problem.

Theories belong to the Scientific Method- and Ed’s theory

has obviously the same natural purpose: to explain how LENR works and how this could be used for creating a commercial energy source based on LENR. Absolutely correct, this is the essence of the scientific method, a creative dogma, a must. You are not allowed to develop a technology if you don't know well how it works, isn’t it? It is unscientific and it can be very risky!

However what to do if you are not able to understand, you cannot create a theory fulfilling this elementary request? Perhaps you cannot have a theory because the phenomenon/process was discovered too early and science is not prepared to explain it.  And surely, the phenomena are so complex, so multilayered and poly-sequential that they need more theories not one single one? Add to this that the experimental situation is simply dreadful- only, say, one experiment from 5-6, gives a measurable result. The phenomenon clearly exists but cannot be controlled. I don’t know why nobody believes me and Ed Storms rejects my air poisoning hypothesis)

What TO DO THEN? You have to abandon the issue and continue to strive heroically for the perfect theory and deep complete understanding? I have to take this personally; I will be 77 years old in October, how many years I can wait for a good theory to save LENR and to make it flourish? I know that the distance from a perfect theory to a working device is great, technology is much more than applied science.

Yes, I take it personally and I say it is an alternative to the seemingly fatal obstacles and to a blocked way is to build a new way, the way of technology.

What does this mean? If you have no theories to help, and you are lost theoretically as in our case there still is a possibility- use guiding principles and smart engineering, hard work to develop a well functioning device and technology i.e. to solve the problem per se. The problem has to be reframed, the task becomes to create, by radical changes a functional process.

The scientific method says “how the process works” but if it works badly the alternative is “how can we make it to work

well?” by very smart engineering. The scientific method is combined- actually hybridized with the technological method.

This is based on principles not on complete theories.

For those who believe in the universality of the Scientific Method, this is a sacrilege however it is possible pragmatically

It was done by Andrea Rossi and by DGT (see their "make hydrogen more reactive and metal more receptive” principle) I have written much about this on my blog. If the scientific method does not work, use the hybrid technological scientific method - engineering is the key. I have promoted this idea starting from the very first issue of Infinite Energy.

How this principles-based hybrid scientific-technological works in practice can be seen here:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/07/some-basic-principles-of-defkalions.html  and here:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/02/strategic-principles-of-lenr-and-their.html

We have to determine more guiding principles for solving the LENR problem. Ed’s technology is stating the following:

-        PdD and NiH LENR are similar and the experience from the first can be used for the second- I think this is not true;

-        The active sites for the reaction are cracks of critical dimensions say 1 to 10 nm width. More good cracks lead to more reactions, more heat. but actually more cracks is destruction of the working material;

-        Only the cracks are important, many materials will work;

this seems to be implausible- only transition metals work;

-        The existence of the hydroton has to be demonstrated

Ed’s theory is incompatible with the hybrid approach.

Active vs. passive approach.

Ed’s theory takes a passive approach to the problem.

He resumes the essence of his theory as:

We are faced with three facts.  Many other facts are known but let's discuss these three. 

1. The LENR process is rarely produced.

2. The LENR process takes place somewhere in a physical structure.

3. The LENR process does not emit neutrons or energetic radiation consistent with the amount of detected power.

These facts have several consequences:

1. A difficult to create NAE is required

2. The process must be consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics

3. The process must release the mass energy in small units of energy rather than all at once. 

These facts and consequences limit the nature of the mechanism that can cause LENR.

The active, approach guided by technological principles would be:

1. The best methods to create the maximum density of NAE have to be found, the process has to be intensified, controlled and optimized.

2. The process has to use the laws of Nature, including some newly discovered ones in order to obtain the best possible results by a comprehensive multi-disciplinar R&D program.

3. Nuclear signals have to be reduced as much as possible, they are useless in the case of a heat source.

Further contradiction regarding LENR vs. LENR+

Ed’s theory does not show the difference between classic LENR and enhanced excess heat as obtained by Rossi and DGT. It is about going from tens of Watts to kWatts, can this be hundred times more good cracks or is it something more fundamental and more smart?

My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites ( Ed calls them NAE, but I disagree- see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/active-sites-and-nae.html )  Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continuous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear; the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. The constructive side of the high temperature must be added to its destructive effect and this is the clue of the LENR+’s exceptionality and progress. This is something more sophisticated than crack management.

The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes and the generation of active sites can begin. In my opinion the active sites are at the very surface of a specific metal or alloy.

I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please my Surfdyn paper:

http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858

I hope that the coming LENR+ crucial events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to practice and, simultaneously to theories.

The denial part of Ed’s papers and book is remarkable anyway. He assassinates a lot of theories that are not valid and promotes his theory created in the following basic assumptions:

 The LENR process does not take place in a chemical lattice.
. The LENR process takes place only in cracks of a critically small gap size. 
. All isotopes of hydrogen can fuse by the same basic process, with only the nuclear products being different.
. The basic process removes energy over a period of time as photon emission. Most of this emission does not leave the apparatus.
. The fusion process causes the transmutation reactions.
. The overall process is consistent with all natural law and requires introduction of only one new process.
. Cold fusion and hot fusion are not related in any way.

(from his interview:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue116/stormbook.html )

As already shown till now:

The LENR process, indeed does not take place in the lattice but on the lattice;

The LENR process does not take place in the “void” part

of the cracks but on some special dynamic nanostructures on the surfaces, including the surfaces of cracks;

Deuterium and hydrogen are participating in different nuclear reactions and interactions and different things happen in the

PdD and NiH systems. No simple, logically symmetric vision can be created

The remaining statements are probably valid in great part but this has to be proved by experiment.

What to do with the bad theories

Theories are actually a form of truth and I believe that many are Pareto truths. Even if a theory is not usable for guiding experiments, they may contain fragments of good ideas. smaller or greater sometimes hidden due to a harmful principle (as Pd D is like NiH in Storms’ new theory.)

Therefore, I think we can learn from history what to do and the

Mayan Meteorology Management will be fine as guide, in principle. See please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

The victims were beheaded and their hearts were extracted and offered to bloodthirsty (however de facto inexistant) Gods- in exchange of enough rain and other blessings.

Similarly, the smartest and most valuable parts of the bad theories have to be offered to Science serving for the creation of

healthy and potent principles for LENR.

I well know this parallel with human sacrifices, prohibited now, in the manner described, is a very weird idea.

I have only one excuse: Ed Storms’ new theory is based on cracks, formed by the cracking of Pd- that is, on the irreversible destruction, sacrificing of a precious material.

Were human sacrifices, “efficient”?

Peter