Comparison between some LENR theories

    I recently recalled that a few years ago I was tipped off that Defkalion had Piantelli as a consultant (I don't know if directly or indirectly through Nichenergy). After pondering a bit about this, one could say that their theories do look similar, although obviously they're worded differently. In turn, both theories also somehow have elements similar to Leif Holmlid's. Could it be they're all looking at the exactly same phenomenon under different angles?


    I've written a Google Document summarizing how the reaction is supposed to work in all cases. Can you spot the similarities as well? A common theme seems to be exciting hydrogen atoms dissociated from hydrogen molecules.


    Link: https://docs.google.com/docume…imGYd_P0VyjfOuAGHYbWO_Uw/



    EDIT: it turns out that the deleted portion wasn't entirely accurate, see Peter Gluck's response here:
    https://disqus.com/home/discus…emist/#comment-2509580181

    @John Littlemist: there are many interesting implementation details (for example, in most cases activation is performed by some sort of local concentrated electric field effect), but as far as I can see from a quick read the theory is mostly based on Holmlid's (et al.) Rydberg Matter and Inverted Rydberg Matter hydrogen (which Holmlid currently calls ultra-dense hydrogen).

    Hi all


    Three scenarios


    1) If people want to prove Rossi wrong; what they have to do is: to perform an exhaustive set of experiments on the basis of known information.


    2) If people want to prevent LENR research; (various reasons and motivations, trolling, threat to money or power, blind faith etc. All kind of irrelevant as they just come under: being stupid) then what you do is engage in ad homonym attacks and theoretical barriers. Discussions of theory are irrelevant if experiments produce anomalous results, an anomaly inherently means current theory is incomplete or not properly understood. So one has to wait for multiple experiments proving an anomaly, then and only then can one discuss theory. Any discussion of theory before then is nothing more than conjecture or at best hypothesis.


    3) Or people can simply wait until the Rossi's industrial test is complete. The inability of people to just wait, is like the kids in the back of the car saying are we there yet.


    Kind Regards walker

    Ian Walker,


    1)
    We really do not need to prove Rossi wrong. He does a very good job of it himself. All we have to do is to connect the dots.

    2 & 3)
    When you visit restaurant LENR and ask the waiter for a cup of tea a curious thing happens: suddenly you have become the waiter! This is a chronic condition. Unless you pull yourself together and go to another restaurant of course.

    In case H-G's comment is too elliptical for some...


    Quote


    1) If people want to prove Rossi wrong; what they have to do is: to perform an exhaustive set of experiments on the basis of known information.


    This is a joke? Reverse engineering can always be supposed non-exhaustive due to some uncontrolled parameter, even if the recipe is specified. For example, Parkhomov's recipe is known and people still suppose failure to reproduce his results is some difference in conditions or fuel.



    Quote

    2) ... ad hom comment snipped ... Discussions of theory are irrelevant if experiments produce anomalous results, an anomaly inherently means current theory is incomplete or not properly understood. So one has to wait for multiple experiments proving an anomaly, then and only then can one discuss theory.


    Hang on a moment. You can only establish whether an apparent anomaly is that by checking theory carefully. The barrier is showing that occasional anomalous results are something other than artifact + error. If you think about whenever there has been a new theory to find - the most powerful tool to do this is identifying patterns in the anomalous data and developing the seeds of a new theory from those patterns.


    Quote

    3) Or people can simply wait until the Rossi's industrial test is complete. The inability of people to just wait, is like the kids in the back of the car saying are we there yet.


    I'm not sure whether you have been waiting since Rossi's original promises. He has claimed imminent commercial validation many times only to find another reason for delay. The seeds for the next delay seem well planted, don't you think?


    Rossi's repeated eye-catching claims followed by change in direction match a well-established vapourware pattern - and that is ignoring the repeated bad demos and failures to tighten known errors.

    there are absolutely no LENR theories that describe any part of existing reality. And that, you fellow goofies, is a major problem.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.