Let's start from a different viewpoint. I would like to find out from
Tom and other people whether their approach can be applied to my
approach. I'm trying to explain what is common to all approaches,
which might be combined, and where they are different and might need
to be modified.
I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to form
in PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy conversion
because no conventional chemical structure can do this. Each of the
proposed theories identifies some kind of change, but each one is
different. The proposed structure is given different names and
different properties, but the goal is the same. We are all trying to
solve the same problem by proposing different mechanisms and we place
these structures at different locations within the material. I'm
trying to find some agreement we all can live with.
No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST
follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a
normal chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical
structure. No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules
no matter how much QM is applied or how complex the mathematical
justification. No idea will be accepted if it violates the Laws of
Thermodynamics, for example. Can we agree on this basic requirement??
I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because
creation of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice
itself without violating these rules, which I have explained
previously. This conclusion is important and BASIC to understanding
LENR. People have to stop trying to fit their structure into the
lattice. Using the lattice as the location is the major flaw in the
theories. This requirement MUST be resolved because no agreement
exists at the present time.
Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to
this requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model fits
this requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from hydrons,
which other people have called a cluster. I simply add more details
about how this structure can be created based on conventional
concepts. Most other models ignore the formation process.
Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron can
be promoted to the p level. This promotion cannot occur in the normal
lattice because the p level has more energy than does the s level. On
the other hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s state
electron to the p state as a result of the intense negative charge on
the walls of the crack. This should be easy to justify using QM
calculations, which I suggest Tom explore.
This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a string.
At this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is described.
The only novel feature is the ability of the charge on the walls of
the crack to promote the election to the next quantum level.
Nevertheless, the structure contains all the features required to
start the mass-energy conversion, i.e. many hydrons coupled together
by electrons and a physical form that can resonate. The only question
remaining, Is this structure sufficient to initiate mass-energy
conversion?
The basic question is, Which structure being proposed as the mechanism
for the mass-energy conversion process is correct? Each of the
structures has flaws and limitations we each can identify in the other
models, but not perhaps not in our own. Can we agree that the
structure most likely to be correct and certainly the most useful one
will explain the greatest number of observations? Also, no proposed
structure can be tested unless the conditions causing its formation
can be created in real materials. Purely mathematical models applied
to ideal materials, I suggest, can be rejected immediately.
Can we discuss and agree about any of these conclusions?
Ed
