There is a restrictive assumption in your analysis that limits possibilities. The LENR process may be carried by a dozen different elements, mostly transition metals, not only nickel. Nickel may have advantages over the other active elements but the NiH reaction should be looked upon as a topological reaction where the shape of the material is what matters and not the material itself.
My motivation here. I am building a case for LENR as the underpinning for dark matter and dark energy. In intergalactic gas clouds, many elements are found. Unexpectedly, a high percentage of intergalactic dust are transition metals, the expected ash for a LENR reaction. The cosmological LENR reaction in order to support dark energy and a galaxy size dark matter soliton, production could not be restricted to only nickel. On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jones, all your points are well taken, we certainly don't have to agree on > everything and there is much in the field that is still "up for grabs", and > I think its possible we have different effects going on in PdD vs. NiH as > well. I really like how Ed's theory fits PdD, and you may be right about > the more exotic elements of NiH, but lets face it, we don't have much solid > experimental work to pull from in NiH. I mean, in terms of a ratio, its > probably like 10:1 in favor of PdD -- NiH has a lot of catching up to do > experimentally. Unfortunately much of the data is kept under wraps due to > intellectual property, etc. This both helps and hurts progress of the > field. I think speaking too authoratively about what is actually going on > in NiH domains is highly presumptuous, and while speculating is useful, > drawing too many conclusions from a system we don't know much about is a > mistake. Hell we don't even know what the dominant nuclear-ash is, or if > there is a nuclear ash. This is why I'm praying DGT actually goes through > w/ mass spectroscopy work that they promised in their most recent paper. > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Finally finished "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" over the >> weekend and find it to be a mixed bag - brilliant in places, but >> disappointing in others. There is no "cutting-edge" to be found here, if >> that is what you are looking for. I was, and maybe that is my problem. It >> can be recommended as a fine historical piece, very well-researched - but >> do >> not expect much more. >> >> Here is my main objection to Ed Storms' book from what is admittedly a >> minority point of view. It is a historical account of the first twenty >> years >> which overlooks the importance of new work, and that Ni-H is the >> commercial >> savior of LENR. All of that wonderful prior work with Pd-D, which set the >> table for where we are now, is valuable and intuitive, but .... To be >> blunt, >> when one is lost in time, with a focus on history, then the baggage that >> comes with that viewpoint can interfere with accurate understanding of >> where >> we are going. Palladium cannot really help us in the long run, and the >> best >> hope for deuterium now rests with Mizuno's new work. BTW - Mizuno's >> important new work is ignored by Ed and he cherry-pick data from old work >> that contradicts the new. That is almost unforgiveable in a book which >> promises accurate explanations. >> >> In short, Storms is only accurate for understanding results which were >> prior >> to Rossi and to "nano" but then falls flat - insofar as opening up the >> future. The book overlooks the most important new developments in LENR, >> like >> nanotechnology and SPP, or else fails to analyze them properly. I finished >> this book wanting much more and thinking that I had already read most of >> it >> anyway. >> >> In 24 years of accumulated experiment, which includes Mills - the >> experimental results are often contradictory, when considered in toto. >> When >> one is looking for commonality, as in this book, a general theme should >> emerge. That is where Ed's book fails - it begins with a false assumption >> and ends with a theme that points us in the wrong direction. To wit: >> >> 1) Fusion of deuterium in a Pd matrix or crack strongly appears to >> be a >> novel kind of gammaless nuclear fusion, with helium or tritium as the ash. >> This is where Ed's account is authoritative and helpful. He is an expert >> with Pd-D. >> >> 2) However, deuterium can participate in thermal gain without fusion, >> as the new Mizuno work indicates, which work is ignored as are many >> important new developments - like Cravens extremely important NI-Week >> demo. >> >> 3) Reactions of protons in a metal matrix (no deuterium) strongly >> appears to be non-fusion, having almost no indicia of fusion, as in >> Rossi's >> work; but it can be nuclear in the sense of nuclear mass being converted >> into energy. Rossi is marginalized. >> >> 4) Ed does not to believe that the two isotopes, deuterium and >> protium >> can entail completely different modalities for thermal gain - and so he >> proceeds to lump Ni-H into a category where it is not well-suited. Thus, >> for >> the segment of LENR which deals with Ni-H, his book is both wrong and >> counterproductive, since it casts the entire sub-field into chaos for the >> start by confusing two pathways as one. >> >> 5) It should be noted, in defense of point 3 that slight >> transmutation >> is seen on rare occasion by a minority of researchers (notably Piantelli), >> but it is three orders of magnitude too low to account for excess heat. >> When >> copper is found with nickel it is in the natural isotope ratio which >> statistically proves absolutely that it cannot be formed from nickel. >> >> In short, this book is authoritative and helpful for understanding the >> history of cold fusion, Pd-D and most of the experiments following in the >> footsteps of P&F. That is the good part and if this is what you are after, >> then do not read-on. >> >> As for the downside, Storms overlook or marginalizes the fact that Ni-H >> may >> not be related to Pd-D and may not be fusion at all. He emphasizes the few >> findings which point to fusion, and fails to even mention contrary >> arguments >> and weight of evidence. The two isotopes are extraordinarily different and >> it makes no sense to lump them into the same modality. The bottom line for >> Storms book is that it will bring you up to date to around the year 2010 - >> in terms of where the field was then, but fails to move beyond that >> limitation. >> >> In neglecting to emphasize the importance of Ni-H, mention the zero point >> field, nanomagnetism (or almost anything related to nanotechnology), >> giving >> half a sentence to surface plasmons, marginalizing Rossi, Cravens, Mizuno, >> Mills, and ignoring Ahern, plus - ignoring dozens of other cutting-edge >> subjects, "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" should instead >> be >> called "The History of Cold Fusion in Palladium." >> >> But as disappointing as it was to me, it was still worth the time, and you >> may agree with Ed's perspective anyway, so have at it! >> >> >> >> >> >
