I agree with what you say, Mark. The parameters have to be within
range, but that range is generally not exceeded unless a real effort
is made. Consequently, the laws usually apply and must not be ignored
just because they may fail outside of an extreme range. On the other
hand, I'm amused by people who apply processes that occur in the Sun
to what might happen in a cathode on Earth. This is an example using
conditions that are way out of range.
I do not believe CF should be considered to be outside of physics just
because the hot fusion behavior is not detected. This is the basic
error made by skeptics. Cold fusion is a new phenomenon that occurs
only at low energy, which has not been explored before. The behavior
has opened a new window into Nature. No conflict exists and no law of
physics is violated. Nevertheless, some insight is missing. We need to
find that insight. After all, that is what we were taught science was
all about,. Obviously, some people slept through that lecture.
Ed Storms
On May 19, 2013, at 10:16 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Ed said:
“Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws
because the descriptions always apply.”
I would add the following ending to that statement for it to be
precise:
“…because the descriptions always apply when experimental parameters
are within the ranges established across all the replications.”
If someone conducts an experiment, but cranks up parameter X to 1000
times what was used in all previous replications, there is no
guarantee that the results will come out as expected. There are
numerous examples where ‘laws’ failed when some parameter in the
experiment was way beyond what had been tried before; where some
critical threshold had been reached.
I also have a problem with the use of the word ‘always’ in that
statement; or in any statement for that matter. The now mature
field of Chaos, Dissipative structures and Self-organizing systems,
which grew out of Ilya Prigogine’s work, has shown how coherence can
spontaneously form in an otherwise incoherent system, and there are
many examples in science, including in chemistry and physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system
I agree for the most part with your desire to diligently apply the
‘laws’ of physics, however, there are some aspects of LENR which
*potentially* place it outside the realm/range established from
historical empirical results. As has been mentioned numerous times
by LENR researchers, the rules of plasma physics may not apply in
the condensed matter world that is LENR.
-Mark
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Mark, I agree that we do not know all we think we know and many
rules can be violated when conditions change. Nevertheless, we do
have a collection of observations that show how Nature behaves. Some
of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because
the descriptions always apply. Of course, a person has to understand
what the law actually means. For example, I find that many people,
even in science, do not understand what the Laws of Thermodynamics
mean. This problem is especially notable in physicists.
Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical
way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This
means that what we think we know is determined by the initial
assumptions, not by the applied math itself. The math can be made
to fit the observations and may even provide predictions that fit
behavior. However, this does not mean the assumption is correct.
Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This is based on an
assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection of
mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most
observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing
and also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you
believe depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore.
This same problem occurs with cold fusion. Which theory you accept
depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. I'm
trying to create a theory that ignores no observation and no
accepted behavior of Nature. Meanwhile, people simply propose and
discuss any imagined idea that comes into their head without any
awareness of what is known about CF or about Nature in general. That
is my frustration.
New ideas are required, but not at the expense of ignoring all
else. Science has come a long way and does not need to reinvent the
wheel every time a new phenomenon is discovered.
On May 18, 2013, at 8:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
I know Ed has expressed concern, and a bit of frustration, at how
some of the Collective’s discussions are too OOTB, or seemingly
without much concern for basic physics principles, for a seasoned
scientist’s tastes… and he certainly has a valid point. However,
many here do have a good grounding in science and engineering, and
we at least try to apply the ‘laws’ of physics (and I use the term
‘laws’ carefully)… but we also know that those laws have a LIMITED
sphere of applicability; they do NOT apply everywhere! I have
found it necessary in several Vort threads to remind the
discussioneers that the Laws of Thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO CLOSED
SYSTEMS. Too often that minor point gets lost… When dimensions
become small enough, or time scales fast enough, that quantum
mechanical phenomena begin to influence things, those laws can
either appear to be, or actually be, violated, in those instances.
But I digress… back on point.
In trying to reduce Ed’s frustration level with the ‘loose’
conversations that fly around inside the Dime Box Saloon, I would
like to drill down a little more into nothingness, and look inside a
NAE…
---------------
Assume we start out with a chunk of solid palladium with NO internal
voids or ‘cracks’…
Stress that chunk of palladium so a crack/defect/void forms in the
interior of it, removed from the outer surfaces…
assume that this void is several hundred atoms long, and a few tens
of atoms wide.
Have Scotty miniaturize you, and beam you into the center of that
void…
Questions to contemplate:
1) what’s inside that void?
The answer depends on which theory you accept. In my case, the void
consists initially of a strong negative charge created by the
electrons in the wall that are associated with the metal atoms
making up the wall. The charge is strong because it is now unbalance
as a result of the walls being too far apart for the electron orbits
(waves) to be properly balanced. This condition attracts hydrons
(hydrogen ions), which enter the gap by releasing Gibbs energy. In
so doing, they create a tightly bonded covalent structure in the
form of a string. The hydrons in this string are closer together
than is normally possible because the electron concentration between
them is higher than normal. When this structure resonates, the
hydrons get even closer together periodically, depending on the
frequency of vibration. Each time they get to within a critical
distance, energy is emitted from each hydron as a photon. Once
enough energy has been emitted as a series of weak photons, the
fusion process is completed by the intervening electron being sucked
into the final nuclear product. The details of how this process
works will be described later.
2) what’s the temperature in that void?
The temperature is very high, but not high enough to melt the
surrounding material. As a result, some energy is lost from the gap
as phonons. The photon/phonon ratio is still unknown. Nevertheless,
the rate of photon emission is large enough to be detected outside
of the apparatus when H is used.
3) are there any fields (as in E or B fields) inside that void?
The E and B fields are strong.
4) what is the mean free path of a free electron or proton in that
void?
The electrons that create the covalent bond between the hydrons are
in a superconducting state. Their path is limited by the length of
the string.
This description is consistent with all thermodynamic requirements
and is missing only one feature that needs to be better understood.
Of course, this model is not like any other, although it contains
features that have been suggested by other people. I have simply
taken various parts and put them together into a bigger picture. In
so doing, I have created a map that can be improved as new features
are discovered because we now know where to look and what to look
for. After all, that is the function of a theory, or at least that
is what we are taught.
Ed Storms
------------------
Looking fwd to the Collective’s thoughts…
-Mark
