Subpage of Kowalski/cf, retrieved from
420 Oriani’s Death and Quick Comments on NAE
Ludwik Kowalski, Ph.D. (see Wikipedia)
Montclair State University, Montclair, N.J. USA
1) Yesterday (9/3/2015) I learned about the death of Richard Oriani at age 94. The obituary in StarTribune, his local newspaper, can be seen at:
My contribution to this formal goodbye is also there.
2) In a private message received today, a colleague quoted Max Planck–“science does progress funeral by funeral.” Another CMNS researcher commented: “In this case we are seeing regress, not progress. As I said years ago this is a generational role reversal. Young scientists are conservative while the old, and now dying ones champion new ideas! The world is upside down. …”
Is the CMNS field progressing or regressing? I do not know how to answer this question. One thing is sure, this area of science, often called “Cold Fusion,” is still active.
3) A good example of activity is the “Interview with Dr. Edmund Storms, conducted by Peter Gluck. It was posted on the CMNS forum for active scientists (see the blue italic text below, and my comments, next to it). Dr. Storms is a nuclear chemist with over thirty years of service at Los Alamos National Lab, and now working privately at Kiva Labs. His 2014 book, “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction,” describing the field, is commercially available:
Also see his YouTube presentation at:
Peter Gluck, PhD in chemical engineering, is a retired technologist who has worked many tens of thousands of hours with matter (chemical industries), energy (new sources of energy) and information (web search). He communicates with the world via the blog EGO OUT.
< http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2015 >
INTERVIEW WITH DR. E. STORMS
Based on a discussion stimulated, in part, by the coming CERN Seminar on D/H loaded palladium , Ed Storms has summarized his answers in this way. It is about the essence of the problems of the field.
“LENR [Low Energy Nuclear Reactions] has two aspects, each of which has to be considered separately. The first question is where in the material does the [new kind of] ]nuclear reaction take place. In other words, were is the NAE [Nuclear Active Environment] located. This means where in space is the NAE located, such as near the surface, and what is unique about the NAE. The LENR reaction CAN NOT take place in the normal lattice structure where it would be subjected to the well known laws [such as law of mutual electric repulsion of positive nuclei] that apply to such structures.
I propose the only place able to support such a nuclear reaction while not being subjected to the known chemical requirements are cracks consisting of two surfaces with a critical gap between them. Before the nature of the nuclear process can be discussed, a NAE must be identified and its existence must be agree to. Failure to do this has resulted in nothing but useless argument with no progress in understanding or causing the phenomenon[of nuclear fusion].
Once the characteristics of the NAE are identified, a mechanism can be proposed to operate in this NAE with characteristics compatible with this environment. Attempts to propose a mechanism without identifying the NAE are doomed to failure. Without knowing the NAE, we are unable to test the characteristics of the nuclear mechanism to see if it can take place in an ordinary material and we are unable to know how to create a potentially active material.
This requirement is so basic, further discussion is pointless unless agreement is achieved.
This is not a normal physics problem where any idea can be made plausible simply by making a few assumptions. The nature of the chemical environment prevents many assumptions. We are proposing to cause a nuclear reaction in ordinary material where none has been seen in spite of enormous effort and none is expected based on well understood theory. A significant change in the material must first take place. This change must be consistent with the known laws of chemistry. Only the creation of cracks meets this requirement.
Once the NAE is identified, the characteristics of the nuclear reaction must be consistent with what is known. Simply proposing behavior based on general physics concepts is useless. For example, the role of perturbed angular correlations, which you suggest, must be considered in the context of the entire proposed reaction. The question means nothing in isolation. Like many proposed mechanisms, the idea cannot be tested because it has no clear relationship to the known behavior of LENR or to the variables known to affect the phenomenon.
This is not a guessing game. We now have a large collection of behavior all models most explain. Why not start by considering models that are consistent with this information?”
4) NAE, in other words, if I understand Storms correctly, is a hypothetical environment in which mutual repulsion of protons is much weaker (and we do not know why) than in the vacuum separating atoms. He is right that cold fusion would take placespontaneously (essentially by definition) in such environment. But is he also right by saying that “attempts to propose a mechanism [of cold fusion] without identifying the NAE are doomed to failure.” Probably not. Theoretical scientists have no other options but to use models that have already been validated.
5) Let me mention something else questionable. On one hand Ed states that we know nothing about NAE; on the other hand he claims that NAE can be created “in cracks only.” How does he justify this?
6) Is it correct to say that NAE is related to nuclear cold fusion like AIR, our well-known “Flying Active Environment,” is related to airplanes on Mars? We know a lot about AIR but we know nothing about NAE.
7) The last paragraph of the interview is profound; it has to do with the essence of scientific methodology. Yes, speculations resulting from arbitrary assumptions belong to mathematics (and to theology), not to physical science, where theories are “made plausible” by reproducible experimental data, as we know.