Miles PdB paper... Might Boron be the key difference in Fleischmann’s and Pons’s Pd?

Getting back to the topic, I do not think Miles new publication will gain any traction. There have been many like his over the last 30 years, and none have raised an eyebrow (attracted interest) within the mainstream. And yes, that is taking into consideration he is one of the highly regarded "old guard", with impeccable credentials. So is Storms, and where did that get him?

Maybe I am becoming a pessimist, but what will it take? Yes, I know...a working prototype. But one of the old guard recently became active here and he disagrees. Asserts instead, that it will first take a theory, then it be proven 100% experimentally.

Quote from Shane D.

Getting back to the topic, I do not think Miles new publication will gain any traction. There have been many like his over the last 30 years, and none have raised an eyebrow (attracted interest) within the mainstream. And yes, that is taking into consideration he is one of the highly regarded "old guard", with impeccable credentials. So is Storms, and where did that get him?

Maybe I am becoming a pessimist, but what will it take? Yes, I know...a working prototype. But one of the old guard recently became active here and he disagrees. Asserts instead, that it will first take a theory, then it be proven 100% experimentally.

Engineers (me included) would politely beg to disagree. Historically we have used practical effects to get things done without a shred of a theory (many examples, but take for a classical example the use of explosives like powder, it was being used very effectively for centuries without anything but empirical knowledge), of course when a good theory arises any empirical knowledge can be greatly improved. The first practical usable LENR device to get to market will probably be there with a very weak theory, but no one paying less for energy will care.

Now all that said, I agree that a strong advance in the field requires a sound theory, but also, a good research budget, that currently, no one seems to have in this field.

Quote from Curbina

Engineers (me included) would politely beg to disagree. Historically we have used practical effects to get things done without a shred of a theory (many examples, but take for a classical example the use of explosives like powder, it was being used very effectively for centuries without anything but empirical knowledge), of course when a good theory arises any empirical knowledge can be greatly improved. The first practical usable LENR device to get to market will probably be there with a very weak theory, but no one paying less for energy will care.

Now all that said, I agree that a strong advance in the field requires a sound theory, but also, a good research budget, that currently, no one seems to have in this field.

But he claims with LENR, that theory is required first, because of the patent issue. That the market will never allow a product that tests safe, but has no plausible theory to support it. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Also I want to reiterate, as I have said a few times before, that we LENRists are mostly in a Public Relationship war to get legitimacy for LENR research, in order to get resources flowing into our field. In this regard, the possibility of obtaining repeatable results, even if modest, as the work of Miles seems to prove, is key to get the field to be acknowledged as legitimate and empirically supported, which as of now, is a view held mostly be "we the LENR people" that are involved or invested in this field.

Also, I want to add that we have a major elephant in the room when talking about accepted theories and empirical significance. ITER project is backed by theory that experimentally has been found to be full of holes, yet, is widely accepted. I don't blame hot fusion as a field for stopping LENR getting resources, but we have it as example that good PR and key contacts do open the valves of research finance.

This is a battle that, barring a breakthrough or serendipitous good luck, will be won only by being persistent.

I was celebrating my 15th orbit around the sun when I first heard of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, their press conference just coincidentally was held on my birthday. I am now 46 y.o. and we have a massive database backing LENR that only needs to become more known and get more people behind. I am doing my part, as humble as it might be, by trying to make the good results better known to ourselves and whoever I might get to.

Quote from Shane D.

But he claims with LENR, that theory is required first, because of the patent issue. That the market will never allow a product that tests safe, but has no plausible theory to support it. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Well, that is probably a self inflicted wound. We all have wanted to patent inventions instead of practical embodiments (aka Utility models).

Of course one can say that LENR has received a bad treatment by the Patent Offices, but we can also see that in the past 10 years a lot of issued patents around LENR ideas have appeared, and that have not produced any commercial products. We knew recently about the European Patent of Deuterium Energetics, as a short term example. So, granted patents also don't warrant investment. I think Brillouin has some granted patents, perhaps some rejected ones too, but they have preferred to go the NDA way to keep advancing. Last I knew of them is they are comfortably in the COP 4X range.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Для того, чтобы осмыслить мои утверждения, я предлагаю Вам ознакомиться с данными исследования - https://www.researchgate.net/p…New_Scientific_Phenomenon

I am familiar with that paper, I don’t get what’s your point. You claim to have a higher understanding of the phenomena behind LENR, but I don’t see you being able to make predictions based on your theory nor to explain better known observations.

The key for differentiation of an hypothesis from a theory is that a theory enables to make predictions about the potential outcomes of experiments, or explain better or more completely already observed phenomena.

I really don’t see better explanations nor predictions coming from your theory.

Quote from Curbina

I am familiar with that paper, I don’t get what’s your point. You claim to have a higher understanding of the phenomena behind LENR, but I don’t see you being able to make predictions based on your theory nor to explain better known observations.

The key for differentiation of an hypothesis from a theory is that a theory enables to make predictions about the potential outcomes of experiments, or explain better or more completely already observed phenomena.

I really don’t see better explanations nor predictions coming from your theory.

I don’t mean to say that your theory is not valid, anyway, just that you haven’t been so far effective in making a good case for it.

Wyttenbach has a very complex to grasp model that has one great quality: it allows to calculate observed values with an accuracy that no other model has ever come close. That’s what keeps the interest in his model alive, the predictive power it has when contrasted with experimentally measured values.