Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
In this experiment the possible source of the energy is the electric arc. ***Yup. It's possible that it's the arc that causes the jump to LENR. In Ed Storms's perspective, it is cracks which force a 1 dimensional string to form and somehow the laws of thermodynamics don't apply because it's no longer in the bulk. Well, if there's a spark across that crack caused by a differential voltage, INSIDE that spark you could have the formation of a linear (Luttinger Liquid) BEC that might also act as an accelerator, pushing hydrogen atoms protons into the sides of the cavities at close to the speed of light, like a cathode ray tube accelerator. Good place to start for this Poynting Vector-based accelerator proposal: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg66755.html INSIDE the arc, it is plasma physics rather than condensed matter physics and the laws of thermodynamics DO get twisted a bit. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: More... Going from carbon and water to nickel is a LENR reaction that requires the injection of a good deal of energy to occur. Since carbon are water are low Z elements that transmute to high Z elements, just about all the elements produced require external energy for the reaction to occur. Mizuno is not the only experiments to show endothermic energy input. In this experiment the possible source of the energy is the electric arc. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m329.pdf *Low Energy Induced Nuclear Fusion Via Coherence* *Of The Quantum Vacuum, Zero-Point Energy* *Through Ultra Close Range Casimir Effects* Page 1119 The analysis of the carbon residue is tabulated below for the four samples collected as described earlier. The last column is one set of typical DC Arc Spectroscopy results provided for comparison that were reported by Singh, et al of B.A.R.C in their 1994 carbon arc in water experiment reported in *Fusion Technology*. 18 elements were transmuted from pure carbon and pure water via an electric arc. See table. Any theory of LENR must explain any experiment result ever performed and account for any of those experimental results. This criticism is part of the peer review process. The person who produced the theory might well consider the criticism as a service and amend his theory for the better. This is not an EMOTIONAL process involving loyalty, or politics, but one of science in the quest to arrive at perfect truth. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hello Axel, I do understand that there are good theories and not so good dittos. Why so adamant? It seems to me that there is a myriad of theories, some of them have similarities, some of them exclude each other. Very little is won by finding holes in the other theories. Problems are many and the lack of experimental data is the main issue. Therefore it is hard to have any theory confirmed. The well established experiments (BLP, Rossi, etc). are protecting there investment and let very little out about their findings. I realize that it is expensive and difficult to make experiments. However, I think that just now we need to to stop producing more theoretical formats and concentrate on verifying one theory one step at the time. I think Ed Storms have done that and that is what brings credibility to his theory. It does not make it right but very few hypothesis are better substantiated with actual test data. My suggestion is just that. Suggest or do experiments to be done to support your own theories instead of finding holes in others ideas. I think Brad is on the right track. I am happy to provide the microwave:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
Axil and all, This theory would explain the claimed transmutation when carbon is microwaved. Does carbon in a microwave transmute or not? I can't seem to find a real answer, yet it seems like a simple question and experiment, given the availability of very pure carbon (and kitchen appliances.) - Brad On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
Hello Axel, I do understand that there are good theories and not so good dittos. Why so adamant? It seems to me that there is a myriad of theories, some of them have similarities, some of them exclude each other. Very little is won by finding holes in the other theories. Problems are many and the lack of experimental data is the main issue. Therefore it is hard to have any theory confirmed. The well established experiments (BLP, Rossi, etc). are protecting there investment and let very little out about their findings. I realize that it is expensive and difficult to make experiments. However, I think that just now we need to to stop producing more theoretical formats and concentrate on verifying one theory one step at the time. I think Ed Storms have done that and that is what brings credibility to his theory. It does not make it right but very few hypothesis are better substantiated with actual test data. My suggestion is just that. Suggest or do experiments to be done to support your own theories instead of finding holes in others ideas. I think Brad is on the right track. I am happy to provide the microwave:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m329.pdf *Low Energy Induced Nuclear Fusion Via Coherence* *Of The Quantum Vacuum, Zero-Point Energy* *Through Ultra Close Range Casimir Effects* Page 1119 The analysis of the carbon residue is tabulated below for the four samples collected as described earlier. The last column is one set of typical DC Arc Spectroscopy results provided for comparison that were reported by Singh, et al of B.A.R.C in their 1994 carbon arc in water experiment reported in *Fusion Technology*. 18 elements were transmuted from pure carbon and pure water via an electric arc. See table. Any theory of LENR must explain any experiment result ever performed and account for any of those experimental results. This criticism is part of the peer review process. The person who produced the theory might well consider the criticism as a service and amend his theory for the better. This is not an EMOTIONAL process involving loyalty, or politics, but one of science in the quest to arrive at perfect truth. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hello Axel, I do understand that there are good theories and not so good dittos. Why so adamant? It seems to me that there is a myriad of theories, some of them have similarities, some of them exclude each other. Very little is won by finding holes in the other theories. Problems are many and the lack of experimental data is the main issue. Therefore it is hard to have any theory confirmed. The well established experiments (BLP, Rossi, etc). are protecting there investment and let very little out about their findings. I realize that it is expensive and difficult to make experiments. However, I think that just now we need to to stop producing more theoretical formats and concentrate on verifying one theory one step at the time. I think Ed Storms have done that and that is what brings credibility to his theory. It does not make it right but very few hypothesis are better substantiated with actual test data. My suggestion is just that. Suggest or do experiments to be done to support your own theories instead of finding holes in others ideas. I think Brad is on the right track. I am happy to provide the microwave:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
More... Going from carbon and water to nickel is a LENR reaction that requires the injection of a good deal of energy to occur. Since carbon are water are low Z elements that transmute to high Z elements, just about all the elements produced require external energy for the reaction to occur. Mizuno is not the only experiments to show endothermic energy input. In this experiment the possible source of the energy is the electric arc. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-297/aflb297m329.pdf *Low Energy Induced Nuclear Fusion Via Coherence* *Of The Quantum Vacuum, Zero-Point Energy* *Through Ultra Close Range Casimir Effects* Page 1119 The analysis of the carbon residue is tabulated below for the four samples collected as described earlier. The last column is one set of typical DC Arc Spectroscopy results provided for comparison that were reported by Singh, et al of B.A.R.C in their 1994 carbon arc in water experiment reported in *Fusion Technology*. 18 elements were transmuted from pure carbon and pure water via an electric arc. See table. Any theory of LENR must explain any experiment result ever performed and account for any of those experimental results. This criticism is part of the peer review process. The person who produced the theory might well consider the criticism as a service and amend his theory for the better. This is not an EMOTIONAL process involving loyalty, or politics, but one of science in the quest to arrive at perfect truth. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hello Axel, I do understand that there are good theories and not so good dittos. Why so adamant? It seems to me that there is a myriad of theories, some of them have similarities, some of them exclude each other. Very little is won by finding holes in the other theories. Problems are many and the lack of experimental data is the main issue. Therefore it is hard to have any theory confirmed. The well established experiments (BLP, Rossi, etc). are protecting there investment and let very little out about their findings. I realize that it is expensive and difficult to make experiments. However, I think that just now we need to to stop producing more theoretical formats and concentrate on verifying one theory one step at the time. I think Ed Storms have done that and that is what brings credibility to his theory. It does not make it right but very few hypothesis are better substantiated with actual test data. My suggestion is just that. Suggest or do experiments to be done to support your own theories instead of finding holes in others ideas. I think Brad is on the right track. I am happy to provide the microwave:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms just gives us one out of a potential million LENR reaction results that have been seen in LENR experimentation. Ed never wanted to consider transmutation as a valid consequence of the LENR reaction. By embracing transmutation, Ed would need to explain countless variations and permutations of the way protons and neutrons could come together as a result of a LENR reaction. The Mizuno results showing an endothermic reaction is not possible in Ed Storms theory. The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. But the Mizuno results still must be explained by a global theory of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and neutrons coming back together. ... This powerful bolt of energy would supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. ... LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. This is a detail worth thinking about, since the transmutations are all over the map. If nuclear reactions are the main show, as is my guess, the strong force is no doubt involved. When the strong force is involved, it is difficult to contemplate an pathway that does not end in an abrupt tunneling of some kind, even if you miraculously step things down significantly beforehand. In a nuclear reaction, there's going to be an abrupt transition. So my guess is that there's good old-fashioned beam collisions occurring, with every ambient species getting mixed into the beam pathway, and the environment is different from a plasma in some important way: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png The blue is a current of protons from one electrically insulated metal grain to another, undergoing z-pinch, which focuses it. I read a few days ago that a photon will not interact with a free electron; in order for a scattering to occur, there has to be an electromagnetic field present. I'm guessing that a strong electromagnetic field alters the usual branches dramatically. (I suppose there may be something nonnuclear going on along the lines that Jones suggests, which results in prompt emissions as a minor side channel. Less likely, perhaps years of transmutation studies are all in error and due to contamination. But I would not place my bets on these explanations.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
I completely disagree Axil, the Mizuno endothermic (or Ahern endothermic) observation is not at all catastrophic. You said: This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. Once you have a coupled resonant structure, such as Ed's hydroton, and if you include the concept that within the hydroton could exist fractional Rydberg state H (like Mills), then you have a structure that can also absorb energy. Resonant structures make great receivers as well as transmitters. The resonant structure provides the evanescent coupling to the fractional state H atoms. These atoms can be elevated from their fractional state by evanescent coupling as well as being lowered in fractional state through the same evanescent coupling. Depending on the state of the system, it seems plausible that such resonant structures could absorb a significant amount of energy and elevate fractional state hydrogen atoms to a state closer to ground state. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
I seriously doubt that Ed Storms would permit the blatant violation of the strictures of thermodynamics to embrace your scenario. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I completely disagree Axil, the Mizuno endothermic (or Ahern endothermic) observation is not at all catastrophic. You said: This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. Once you have a coupled resonant structure, such as Ed's hydroton, and if you include the concept that within the hydroton could exist fractional Rydberg state H (like Mills), then you have a structure that can also absorb energy. Resonant structures make great receivers as well as transmitters. The resonant structure provides the evanescent coupling to the fractional state H atoms. These atoms can be elevated from their fractional state by evanescent coupling as well as being lowered in fractional state through the same evanescent coupling. Depending on the state of the system, it seems plausible that such resonant structures could absorb a significant amount of energy and elevate fractional state hydrogen atoms to a state closer to ground state. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
This is not a violation of thermodynamics, but a failure to identify the true starting total energy state which must include the fractional Rydberg states of the atoms if such states exist. Yeong Kim's paper describes his solution to the wave equation for sub-ground states and his solution says they don't exist at deep levels. Such analyses begin with assumptions and Yeong's could be wrong (or not). He presumed that the general solution would have to be continuous, but it is possible that the solution is discontinuous. I have not read what I consider to be the final word on the (non)existence of the f/R and DDL hydrogen states. If I recall correctly, in Ed's first book, he did not completely dismiss Mills' work. Bob On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I seriously doubt that Ed Storms would permit the blatant violation of the strictures of thermodynamics to embrace your scenario. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I completely disagree Axil, the Mizuno endothermic (or Ahern endothermic) observation is not at all catastrophic. You said: This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable laws of thermodynamics. Once you have a coupled resonant structure, such as Ed's hydroton, and if you include the concept that within the hydroton could exist fractional Rydberg state H (like Mills), then you have a structure that can also absorb energy. Resonant structures make great receivers as well as transmitters. The resonant structure provides the evanescent coupling to the fractional state H atoms. These atoms can be elevated from their fractional state by evanescent coupling as well as being lowered in fractional state through the same evanescent coupling. Depending on the state of the system, it seems plausible that such resonant structures could absorb a significant amount of energy and elevate fractional state hydrogen atoms to a state closer to ground state. Bob Higgins
