Maybe. Time will certainly reveal the mechanism.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is my belief that LENR is caused by magnetic screening. Cravens system > has a number of LENR processes which includes black body resonant sized > micro particles, hydrogen as an dielectric, and magnetic particles, and > nanowire. These processes are weak but they center on magnetic force > concentration, producing screening sufficient to increase proton tunneling. > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That demonstration is creating what are called Falaco Solitons -- akin to >> topological defects of space-time, etc. Yes, like I said, it's an >> interesting phenomenon and has some applicability to the quantum domain for >> example, but I'm still not convinced its "the thing" in LENR. It might act >> as a catalyst, or something similar when applied, but there are LENR >> systems that exist where quasi-particle phenomenon doesn't seem to be at >> play really. Consider Cravens' heated-orb demo at NI-Week. >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This paining of solitons is what forces the Higgs field to give solitons >>> mass. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I thought this was cool. I always like a picture/video over an >>>> equation. I realize both are important >>>> >>>> Quark pool (soliton "pairs") >>>> >>>> http://youtu.be/909o_kbCdFg >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > Except that Axil's approach, as it seems to me, is confined to >>>> plasmatic NiH >>>> > systems. This is all fine and good and has a certain value. However it >>>> > doesn't have much to say about a variety of PdD or "no stimulation / >>>> low >>>> > temperature" systems. Regardless of which one is more "commercially >>>> viable", >>>> > I think the question of whether we're looking at a universal effect >>>> working >>>> > across all systems, or a variety of effects in different systems, is >>>> an >>>> > important one, and we don't yet know the answer. >>>> > >>>> > Regards >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:41 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> I like Axil's approach. Lots of stuff popping in and out around >>>> here. >>>> >> Lots of hydrogen everywhere also. I think our oceans are made up of >>>> >> hydrogen from our inflated and condensed quantum gravity field from >>>> >> our Sun and our "weather" phenomena. Maybe "Dark Matter" is the >>>> >> attractive force when it is popped in and "Dark Energy" is the extra >>>> >> pressure on the universe when it pops out. >>>> >> >>>> >> I think Space is not so much smooth and curvy but is all stringy and >>>> >> puckered up with lots of LENR happening. >>>> >> >>>> >> Stewart >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> > 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! >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
