The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship between Observation and Explanation by Dr. Edmund Storms attempts to bridge the gap between what is thought to be true and possible by conventional scientists and what is claimed by people advocating the reality of the cold fusion phenomenon. In addition, a new explanation is proposed that is consistent with accepted natural law and with all behavior attributed to cold fusion.
In the book’s Foreword, Dr. Michael McKubre (SRI) writes: “The opportunity to learn directly from the most knowledgeable person in arguably the most important emerging field, and to share his concise and well considered condensation of a difficult and scattered literature, are not the only or primary reasons to comprehend The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. Laid out clearly and gently in Chapter 5, ‘Description of an Explanation,’ is the first physical science based description of a potential explanation for cold fusion.”
Infinite Energy is the publisher of that book, and propose an article on it, with an interview of Edmund Storms.
In his Preface, Storms lays out the prime purpose of the new book. He writes: “This book provides many answers to the rational questions posed by skeptics about the reality, shows how an explanation is best structured, and describes some basic features commercial application must take into account. Cold fusion is not a mystery because it can actually be understood using the concepts applied to normal science.”
Experimentalist McKubre appreciates Storms’ continued critique of existing LENR theory: “Dr. Storms is an active experimentalist and his (sometimes ruthless) evaluation of the huge diversity of models so far proposed to account for LENR is particularly well adapted to the needs of experimental science.”
Storms does not spend much time in the book rehashing the mistreatment of cold fusion science (this has been covered extensively before), but in the Preface he does briefly refer to the long road behind and ahead for the field. He writes: “We can forgive skepticism and rejection when a new discovery is first announced. This is the way of modern physics — reject until proven true. Nevertheless, publication of false information about the claims, refusal by peer reviewers to allow publication of information describing well documented behavior, and personal attack have no business being used to stifle research. Science is not embarrassed or diminished by incorrect claims, but it is damaged by arrogant attack. Rather than providing protection from what is considered by some to be bad science, these attempts to keep science ‘pure’ will now be remembered as the true examples of bad science. Treatment of cold fusion has become a diagnostic tool for revealing how science is actually practiced by some people in contrast to how they are expected to behave.”
the interview is very interesting.
It explain the key of the theory, his conservative theory:
Can you provide a brief description of the model you’ve been working on recently?
I make several basic assumptions that I then justify. These are:
- 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.
How is this model an improvement over other theories that exist?
Unlike other models, I can explain the observed behavior without using ad hoc assumptions, show what aspect of the process needs to be explored next, and predict what will be discovered. In addition, the model is consistent with accepted natural law.
He explain a great problem in LENR science, that scientist don't know well what others have done
Over the years, you’ve conducted several surveys of the field. Jed Rothwell has noted in numerous forums that you are perhaps the only person who has “read everything” in the LENR field. How did reviewing all that data shape your idea of the nuclear active environment (NAE)?
Most people have a very poor knowledge of what other people have done. This knowledge is essential for the patterns and the consistent behaviors to be seen. My access to the overall knowledge is unique and essential to my work. However, reading all the papers is not for the faint of heart, requiring the study of about 2000 papers.
If anyone can read the book and make a critic, it will be very interesting...