Book: “The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” by Edmund Storms to be released July 7th

Infinite Energy Press has announced the publication of a new book on LENR by Dr. Edmund Storms, a nuclear scientist retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship between Observation and Explanation will be published on July 7th. The publicity material for the book explains that Dr. 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.”

Mike McKubre of SRI International who writes the foreword of the book, is full of praise for Dr. Storms and the book and makes particular note that chapter 5 of the book contains “the first physical science based description of a potential explanation for cold fusion.”

I expect this book will be widely read by current researchers and theoreticians in the field, and I think it could be of interest to people just beginning to pay attention to LENR. The lack of an accepted theoretical basis of LENR has proven to be one of the largest stumbling blocks to the scientific community’s acceptance of it as a valid field of study, and the sooner the underlying phenomenon of LENR is understood the better, from the perspective of research and development. This sounds like an important contribution from Edmund Storms.

The book can be pre-ordered at http://lenrexplained.com/

  • Job001

    Thanks bachcole,

    Most perspective are misses. We communicate badly with different tools, languages, assumptions, and bias.

    It’s a wonder we can even talk.

    True understanding might be as rare as hens teeth.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    right, and depending on your culture or your groupthink state, you weight different situation as simple or complex…

    for physicist for example having cold fusion different from hot fusion is much more hard, complex, that simply imagine a fraud by chemists.

    It is the same for conspiracy theory, that are more simple (because based on directed orders from limited number of people), than simply imagining the emergence of some stupidity like the intelligence that emerge from an ant colony.

    For example for me as a corporate engineer, groupthink is easy to swallow, more than conspiracy. collective behavior in lattice is natural for an electronic engineer like me, much more than TD laws breaking or general fraud in science, except if supported by consensus (where thus it is very probable).
    Difficulties to replicate, stupidity to replicate exactly, is evident for me as electronics and software engineer.
    I have difficulties to imagine Davos/Bilderberg kind of conspiracy because of my history, and from my modest finance training, and great training on AI, I rather imagine emergence of incredible intelligence or stupidity from game’s rules.

    maybe a parliament secretary or a top executive will have a different position.

    for me the best film on dictatorship and totalitarianism is Brazil… as if the dictator designed as 1984, and a gang of incompetent clown tried to please the dictator.

    some people imagine that 1984 is possible… just see how terribly inefficient was Soviet or Romanian system, even to watch people.
    However I see how this kind of broken system can survive despite it’s inefficiency and the violation of all it’s initial intents…

    For me Academic groupthink is simply an evidence, and if I was not observing it, I would expect it until contrary evidences.
    What happened with cold fusion is banal. like a genocide.
    This does not mean we have to let it happen.

  • georgehants

    From Cold Fusion Now
    Japanese Cold Fusion Research Society meeting papers released
    “not only to realize an environmentally-sound nuclear
    power system with zero emission of the greenhouse gases and other
    harmful oxides, but also to develop a novel technique for disposal of
    the nuclear wastes produced by fission reactors.”
    http://coldfusionnow.org/japanese-cold-fusion-research-society-meeting-papers-released/

  • Maxfield Q Norse

    At this point the science seems to belong to corporations, rather than universities. While I wish Doctor Storms well and he deserves our gratitude for his personal efforts and sacrifices, I do not wait for the scientific community as a whole to ride in like cavalry. Scientists like Dr. Storms have sacrificed so that the work of a few might prevail. The general science community will come to the rescue once the heavy lifting has been done, the risks taken and the money flows like wine.

    I think Industrial Heat has earned the right to take it from here.
    The same for Brillouin Energy Corp, and any others with breakthrough LENR technology.

  • georgehants

    Asterix, of course you are correct, any correctly predictive theory is a powerful tool.
    Unfortunately, today much of science spends time debunking and hiding any Evidence that goes against, the religiously accepted prevailing official theory on any subject.

  • Maxfield Q Norse

    You know this because you are from the future, where the predictions have come true?

  • Daniel Maris

    Presumably it will be along the lines of his presentation to ICCF? –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpdvwaQSnA

  • georgehants

    If Mr. Storms and Mr. McKubre are good scientists, then I would expect their main and forceful message to be, for science to stop talking, giving “opinions”, stop going on about theories and start doing the full and competent Research for which they are responsible and should have begun 25 years ago.

    • Maxfield Q Norse

      And what better way to stop focusing on theory and opinion than publish a book of theory?

      I have not figured out yet if this line of reasoning is circular or a spiral.

      • georgehants

        Maxfield, Ha, very simple, do both, but priority must by logic alone, be to do the Research as the results could help discover a theory.
        Do you agree with this simple reasoning.

        • Maxfield Q Norse

          Thank you Georghants. I believe you are correct in your evaluation to do both. What you said is much better than what I had in mind, so let us just go with that.

      • Andy Kumar

        “circular or a spiral.”
        Max, That is funny. Spiral is just an open ended (never ending) circle. The e-cat roll out is following spiral path. First we wait for scientific report, then we wait for commercial demo, then report again in a never ending spiral.

        • Maxfield Q Norse

          You should watch soccer. It is a much faster sport.
          You are observing a process which has been evolving for many decades.
          There are practical devices in existence now, this does not satisfy you.
          Demos have been done, reports have been done. These do not satisfy you. Perhaps you cannot be satisfied. One requirement of becoming satisfied is to have a clearly defined objective. If you have one, you have not provided it. You could work on defining criteria which would satisfy you, while you wait with the rest of us.

          • GreenWin

            Max, Andy is one of the more lucid skeptopaths. Over the last couple years he’s been softening his commentary as he groks the inevitability of commercial LENR. Andy wants to do good, but has been indoctrinated by his undergrad studies (according to Andy) at CalTech. That indoctrination insists he adopt the skeptic’s pathology – now exhibited as a “We are waiting…”

            Why would a group of “highly educated” scientists wait for something they know is untrue?? As you note, skeps have been given demos, reports, studies, peer reviewed papers, conferences, government confirmations, etc. etc. This is strong indication that many skeps are paid shills, trolls, disinfo JTRIG-types who are lonely, angry and misanthropes.

            • Maxfield Q Norse

              I suspect he is secretly eager, anxious like the rest of us.

  • clovis ray

    hi, guys, well to be honest i never did think storms cracked theory, was a very good one, but if he is still pushing it, all i will say is he is very courageous to stick with it at this late date, because when the 3 party report comes out, it should have a full explanation, of what is occurring in the reactor, i will wait for Dr. Rossi’s explanation, after all his has the most knowledge of what is being observed, and what that data is reviling, so hurry up and wait, lol.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “In this class I hope you will learn not merely results, or formulae applicable to cases that may possibly occur in our practice afterwards, but the principles on which those formulae depend, and without which the formulae are mental rubbish. I know the tendency of the human mind is to do anything rather than think. But mental labour is not thought, and those who have with labour acquired the habit of application, often find it much easier to get up a formula than to master a principle”

    James Clerk Maxwell-Inaugural lecture, King’s College 1860

    • georgehants

      Alan, we must not forget that Maxwell’s genius put into formal terms the work of one of the most brilliant amateur scientists of all time, who had only Experiments to work with and no theory, but still came up with “fields”
      Faraday

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yes, good point, and I didn’t know that Faraday and Maxwell had a falling out. This is a lot like the cold fusion story.
        http://hermital.org/book/holoprt4-4.htm
        Maxwell should have listened to himself.

  • Paul

    Good news, because Storms is a good scientist who perfectly knows this field and is also an excellent writer and teacher!

  • Gerard McEk

    It is good that Edmund Storms got the support of Mike Mckubre, that gives his theory considerable extra weight. I wonder how other theorists will receive this book and Hydraton/NAE theory. It is known for a while. It would be interesting to see an open discussion between them on this site.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      note that he support his theory as a preliminary proposal, to be tested.
      I think that about theory his great ideas is :
      - stay inside known physics
      - deduce what should be the theory from the mass of experiments

      sadly most theorist base their pet theory on few observations, add new hypothesis to create a new physics…

      I’ve heard that in the book he talk of promising result to check his theory.
      With tritium results I think his theory have good base…if it is not hydroton, it is something with similar characteristics (local NAE, collective, aneutronic fusion pep/ded/tet/ped/pet/det… energy transmitted to the NAE and dissipated in smaller quanta )

      • georgehants

        AlainCo, out of the two “great ideas” that you like, which one do you see as more important?

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          the first principle (stay inside know physics) is just an occam razor.
          staying tied to facts is the key.
          if one day there is clear evidence that QM+TD+GR don’t match with facts, we will need new physics… for now the simplest is the best.

          To propose new physics we need more evidences… we cannot refyte usual physics, so let us first try to challenge it with experiment, before ignoring it.

          New physics is just a lazy reaction when you don’t master enough the known physicist to find a working scenario, and have no way to prove impossibility..
          I put it just after the usual reaction of some physicist who accuse chemist of fraud because they cannot explain the result, nor deny it.

          • georgehants

            Understood, but you have no inbuilt prejudiced against Cold Fusion.
            You agree that Occam’s razor would confirm that the official reasoning that Cold Fusion is a fraud is clearly the simplest explanation, but must be abandoned today.
            Therefore Occam’s razor is a very dangerous tool.

            • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

              occam razo don’t ask for lasy answere and unproven assumption.
              It says, if you have no more evidence, assum the simplest.
              this mean, dig more..

              the error of the pretended skeptic was not to be skeptic (maybe we are not enough prudent), , but to be LAZY…
              they say, it is impossible because I cannot compute it (already absurd), thus I say it is fraud and ask you to prove the opposite, or if you prove it I say you are a good fraudster…

              that is not occam razor, that is stubbornness, laziness.
              occam razor is to temporary assume the simplest, but assume more complex if required… no less, no more.
              you have to mix that with curiosity.

  • georgehants

    If the lack of a theory has in any way impeded the effort to Research and investigate the Evidence, which of course would help to explain the phenomenon and develop a theory, then one I think, can only conclude that our scientific fraternity is being led by people that should be seriously psychologically investigated.
    There surely could be nothing more incompetent than to deny Evidence for lack of an explanation.
    I would as always be pleased to learn better from the qualified scientist on page

    • Curbina

      The problem is the obsession with mathematical modeling. Without a theory that can be modelled is alleged that no meaningful experiments can be designed nor performed. You might recall the fascination of NASA with Widom-Larsen theory, because of this very issue. I think we won’t have a sound theory for LENR for the time being, and none so far has proven very effective at the moment of designing experimental work, at least thet we know of.

      • georgehants

        Curbina, thank you, but you are not clearly agreeing that to delay and abuse Evidence based on Research for lack of a theory, is incompetent, illogical and unscientific to a degree that makes one suspect the sanity of those thinking such things.

        • Curbina

          Well George, we are back to the same matter debated ad nauseam by people in the “Phylosophy of sciences” field. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the “system” thinks is the only way valid (even if people like Thomas Kuhn and Feyerabend have pointed out clearly to the insanity of the “system”)

          • georgehants

            Curbina, many thanks, well we are that little acorn from which perhaps great Oaks grow.
            Would it not be Wonderful to see science blossom into a free, open profession where young scientists (and old) can without fear, Research any topic freely and honestly without the crazy religious Zealots of science attacking them.
            Maybe Cold Fusion would now be helping millions in the World instead of Admin putting up a topic saying that these people are still suffering, because the fools of science have not got a theory to explain something that they refuse to investigate to find a theory.
            Just like Laural and Hardy is it not?

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            it is sad to see that we have all the theoretical epistemology and psychology knowledge to understand this is a bad behavior…
            but it is always repeated.

            is that the definition of madness?

            I see that in economics today in France… everybody know it is stupid, but we do it and as predicted it crash… and dissenter propose worse, and expect to crash more quickly. Groupthink theory is really great, but I wait for a cure.

            • Curbina

              We are still trying to cure it, some work has been done to prevent it.

              http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/credit-and-blame-work/201104/preventing-groupthink

            • bitplayer

              Ah, the perfect place to post a link that combines philosophy of science, economic theory and the problem of materialism…

              http://www.sheldrake.org/research/the-credit-crunch-for-materialism

              • Job001

                Nice link bitplayer.

                I gave up on single knowledge “isms” and absolute truth because they inevitably fail to provide the best results.

                Kurt’s Gödel proof is useful for different perspectives, especially the fallibility of general knowledge and logic.

                Proof; Einsteins friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K…ödel Gödel mathematically proved in 1931 that all assumptions taken too far result in paradox, fallacy, incompleteness, or undecidability, however you wish to describe it.

                Thus knowledge is like tools in a tool box, choose and use them and put them away according to what is likely to “work best and/or expand tool understanding” for the job.

                This metaphor lowers stress and confusion by maximizing knowledge freedom. The tool metaphor is often misunderstood by single malt minds = downside.

                For instance, science and religion are different tools which compliment each other when the other fails, like a hammer and a screwdriver. It’s dumb to use only a hammer and ignore the value of the screwdriver.

                For instance, the intuitive and logical minds work on some problems and not on others and compliment each other when trained to do so. It’s dumb to use only logic when that is usually too expensive and bias failure prone while intuition is fast and imaginative but not necessarily logical.

                Different tools, different uses.