LENR theory characterization methodology

  • The issue of LENR safety boils down to this...can the LENR reaction be partitioned into separate characterizations and functionalities that include the following tentative list of reaction characterizations:


    Radiant energy production,

    ....heat

    ....visible light

    ....UV light

    ....gamma ray

    shock wave production,

    particle production.

    ....electron,

    ....muon,

    ....strange radiation production.

    ........dipole

    ........monopole

    transmutation,

    ....endothermic

    ....exothermic

    matter disintegration,

    radioactivity suppression

    radioactive isotope elimination

    radiation shielding effects,

    matter teleportation,

    anti-gravity,

    magnetism

    ...vortex tube...triangular foot print

    ........dipole

    ........monopole

    ....localized magnetic traps (LMT)

    Soliton formation

    ....bose nova


    For example, by looking at all the ways in which LENR effects appear and can be produced, what LENR consequences must go together and which are inseparable.


    In microbe based LENR, transmutation occurs without any other characterization.


    In the Papp engine reaction, shock waves occur, along with electron production and radioactivity suppression, but little or no heat is produced,


    In the Hutchinson effect, anti gravity effects appear, matter disintegration occurs, strange radiation is produced, transmutation occurs, electrons are produced.


    What LENR engineering must be able to manipulate and the correct theory of LENR must address is how each of these functionalities are produced and how they are matched together as they are currently observed in ALL the various LENR systems that have been discovered. Considering only one or just a few LENR systems is not sufficient to develop a satisfying and useful theory of LENR. By a process of reduction of the globule set of observed LENR behaviors, the theory of LENR shall reduce the cause(s) of the reaction to one or many basic fundamental causes. Any layering of functionality shall be defined between and among these fundamental causes in a hierarchical manor if multiple causes exist.

  • The role of models is to make reality useful so that nature can be manipulated. If fairies and ghosts do the job to the degree that is useful then the model holds value. Can the fairy model make a deign of a aircraft possible? If not, we need a new model. This fairy model helped people back in the middle ages to get through their day, but we cannot use it today to get through our day. If a model no longer explains experimental results that are central to our lives, then the model must be replaced with a new one, a better one a useful one.


    We are looking for a model that makes LENR energy production as a minimum possible. The experiments that we do as a community is how we construct our new models. These experiments have shown us some very weird things are going on that are hard to understand, At the same time, these new models must not contradict all the experiments and observations that have been done since the times of Galileo. Now that is the hard part.


    See "Model-dependent realism"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism


    "Like the overlapping maps in a Mercator projection, where the ranges of different versions overlap, they predict the same phenomena. But just as there is no flat map that is a good representation of the earth's entire surface, there is no single theory that is a good representation of observations in all situations"


    — Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p. 9