However the step is not great enough: the chasm between LENR denial and LENR acceptance is broader and you cannot cross a chasm in smaller steps.
The study is a breakthrough that, very probably will not break through the great obstacles on the way to new energy
This was unavoidable because LENR truth is a very complex truth and has no chances against simple lies or simplistic truths.
During the last 24 hours hundreds of intelligent comments re the Report have appeared on the Web forums- I have tried to read them all and I will take in consideration many of them.
I predict not much will change there, but polarizations will become stronger.
I have anticipated the Report with my question if it will be a paradigm killer and changer? Please allow me to answer later
after discussing some definitory aspects of the Report.
First: clearly this was a scientific, NOT a technological test aiming for truth not value and maximum performances.
Its aim massive, long time excess heat demonstrated beyond any rational, irrational and pathologically hostile doubt was demonstrated indeed, however hostile doubt is invincible, absolutely immune to facts.
Second: Rossi has told innumerable times that the report can be “positive or negative” when it was obvious that it is both, in different extents and for diverse aspects. Nobody would continue a test that gives nothing.
Excess heat was very positive – but a scientific paper is not viable when, as one of the authors has stated: “we face a phenomenon without explanation”
Without a decent hypothesis at least, a paper is not scientific.
Third: the weakness described in the 2nd paragraph is actually
something highly positive and as important as the fine excess
heat- the test has demonstrated that the process is much more complex than we admit and try to explain by the LENR theories. I have expected this with deep commitment; this can be the surprise for many colleagues. You know as a general rule in life and science, 80% of the surprises are negative.
Fourth: It is laudable that the report has added fuel/ash analytics to the thermal results; I am pleased with the methods
but what I still have to find out is sampling. What have they not analyzed? Or, what data are not made public? My guess is that there are more complete variants of the study including features, elements that are connected with Rossi’s know-how. With these data it would be easier to find out how that Hot Cat works, what are the most significant reactions, which are secondary or parasitic reactions, In which extent the process can be called nuclear- and nuclear of what kind: transmutation, fission, nucleosynthesis. I dare to say that this study is a window to the new paradigm- a small window not clean; and a new confirmation of the statement that this process is too complex to be let to the physicists alone.
Fifth: if the study supports the Storms Theory or not, the author will answer himself. It is his right and duty. He can decide if the active nickel works via nanocracks and hydrotons. However the Ni core takes part in a reaction, it is still not know how the Ni isotopes except NI62 disappear.
In the light of what we know or claim to know about LENR the experimental facts found in this study make no sense. The data seem no real. The data are contradicting what we have found in 25+ years of research in cold fusion- LENR , in so many successful studies- however the experimental conditions. Only if we believe that LENR is unique and unitary and unchangeable in principle may we reject these new experimental data as false
It is unpardonable naivety from a researcher to think that beautiful theories and hypotheses accept passively to be massacrated by the hideous experimental facts, no their resistance can be fierce.
Sixth- I have asked: How many times appear in the report words as ICPMS, isotopes, “don’t know yet” “not nuclear” “active sites” and many other words rich in significance?
The answer is quite satisfactory, however we don’t know yet if the authors will help Rossi to conceive a theory- this will show where, how and why the reactions (which) take place.
Seventh- there are some, more formal. flaws of the study and of the research strategy on which it is based: unchanged team, not published in a reputed journal, no peer review, ambiguous or contradictory statements by Rosss –just good to make the Rossi deniers happy, but if we think realistically there were no alternatives.
I still have to study this Report many days in order to understand some significant subtleties. From personal reasons I intend to use more rational thinking than intelligence, in this action, see:
Details and plans coming in my next paper(s)
I have read so many irrational comments about this study that I had to take attitude.