Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Here’s my theory. On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential capacitor. The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is to say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest. When the charge differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated. This spark is what creates the Nuclear Active Environment. But it is not due to plasma physics, it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across the anode & cathode of a capacitor. In the below Quantum Potential article, a propulsive force was found that matches these conditions (except that we’re seeing it on a microscopic level). Asymmetric Capacitor Thruster http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf An earlier SBIR study commissioned by the Air Force reported a propulsive force caused by a spark between ACT electrodes [3]. The study [3] also focused on ACT thrust in high vacuum (10−5 to 10−7 Torr) and reports small (on the order of 10 nN) thrust in vacuum under pulsed DC voltage conditions. Furthermore, the study [3] reports observation of thrust when a piezoelectric dielectric material such as lead titanate or lead zirconate (high relative dielectric constants of k = 1750) was used between the ACT electrodes. The thrust was apparently produced by slow pulsing spark-‐initiated breakdown of the dielectric. The magnitude of the propulsive force increases with the intensity of sparking across the dielectric. The study [3] recommended further exploration of sparking across dielectrics as a source of propulsive forces in ACTs. Unfortunately, no such follow-‐up study was conducted. I believe this Asymmetric Capacitor force has been previously described as the Poynting Vector. I think it is enhanced by the advent of a spark across the electrodes. But I might be mistaken. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/pft01.htm During a charging process of a flat capacitor, the Poynting vector ( S=ExH ) comes from outside the capacitor towards the wire connections, parallel to the surface of the armatures inside the dielectric medium. There is an energy flow directly proportional to ExB. This energy is not provided by the wires but comes from the surrounding space around the capacitor. ( ref: "The Feynman Lectures on Physics : Electromagnetism vol2, Chap: 27-5, fig 27-3" by Addison-Wesley Publishing company. ) So, this Poynting Asymmetrical Capacitor Vector generates a unidirectional force. Any protons within its path would be propelled into a nearby Hydrogen atom which is trapped inside a Palladium matrix. This force is enough to overcome the Coulomb Barrier. A couple of guesses: 1) There would have to be hundreds of thousands of these sparks every second, constantly spitting matter or protons or electrons in one direction similar to a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) particle accelerator, where only 1 in 100k particles actually collides with a nucleus of a hydrogen atom and fuses. 2) This force is proportional to the distance between electrodes, so the effect would happen closer to the small vertex of the crack rather than the large ends of the crack. 3) The transfer of energy of fused atoms is mostly heat because the collision is unidirectional, and the gamma rays that are emitted only come out in certain geometrical probabilities, and most of those probabilities are directly in line with host atoms on the palladium (or nickel) matrix. I look at it similar to a pellet gun hitting balloons -- most of the time the air escapes the balloon in almost the same regions each time. These reactions only occur one atom at a time, so the geometrically restricted release of gamma rays is similarly restricted. The released energy is absorbed by the matrix one atom-release at a time.
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
I'd like to post the gist of my own little theory but my responses have not been getting through lately, so this is a preliminary test. Kevmo
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > Here, you’re going into the hot fusion area by doing plasma compression. > Come to think of it, they do this kind of stuff in the Polywell hot fusion > reactor. They don’t get much reverse beta decay in that system. > Axil, a sub-micrometer sized Polywell reactor is an interesting possibility. To recap, a Polywell reactor creates a virtual negative cathode by confining electrons in a potential well at the center of a set of powerful magnets. The electrons attract positively charged ions so strongly that the rate of fusion becomes significant. We can imagine a Polywell reactor of a similar but different sort inside a closed cavity in a metal substrate. The basic gist of it is this -- a gamma enters the cavity somehow, and through Compton scattering, electrons on the walls of the cavity and bound to the hydrogen confined within it dissociate and become free. Assume a rate of Compton scattering that is sufficient to prevent deionization as the photon or photons reverberate within the cavity. The dissociated electrons now occupy the space in the middle of the cavity. The cavity need not be so narrow that it allows only single nuclei, end-on-end; perhaps it's large enough to accommodate a substantial volume of hydrogen ions and to allow them to move around. Because the hydrogen-1 or hydrogen-2 nuclei have been ionized, they are strongly repelled from the ionized nickel walls and are attracted to the electrons occupying the area in the middle. This leads them to come within a close enough distance to one another at the center of the cavity that the probability of fusion goes up (how far up, I have no idea). In order for anything like this to be feasible, it must be possible for a gamma ray or an x-ray to reverberate within a nickel cavity (allowing for incremental downshifts in wavelength as Compton scattering proceeds -- i.e., it's not really a single photon we're talking about). According to the following abstract, while the refractive index of x-rays tends to zero with increasing energy, that of gammas becomes significant with yet higher energies: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i18/e184802. The article from which I got that reference says that "researchers now believe that by replacing the silicon prisms with higher refracting materials like gold, they can bring refraction [of gamma rays] up to a level where it can realistically be manipulated for optical techniques." I read this to mean that there is a possibility that gammas can behave similarly to light at much lower wavelengths under the right conditions and at the right energies. Another question is how long it would take before a gamma would shift into the x-ray or ultraviolet part of the spectrum; if it transferred energy to the environment too quickly, I suppose deionization might start to take place. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Regarding electron-degenerate matter In a quantum mechanical description, free particles limited to a finite volume may only take a discrete set of energies, called quantum states. The Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents identical fermions from occupying the same quantum state. At lowest total energy (when the thermal energy of the particles is negligible), all the lowest energy quantum states are filled. This state is referred to as full degeneracy. The pressure (called degeneracy pressure or Fermi-pressure) remains finite even near absolute zero temperature. Adding particles or reducing the volume forces the particles into higher-energy quantum states. This requires a compression force, and is made manifest as a resisting pressure. The key feature is that this degenerate pressure does not depend on the temperature and only on the density of the fermions. If you can pump enough electrons into finite volume, or compress that volume, the energy levels of the excess charges will be increased. Can you get the energy of the electron-degenerate matter (aka heavy electrons) high enough by pumping or compression to meet or exceed the level required for reverse beta decay is the engineering question. Here, you’re going into the hot fusion area by doing plasma compression. Come to think of it, they do this kind of stuff in the Polywell hot fusion reactor. They don’t get much reverse beta decay in that system. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM, David Roberson wrote: > I would like to review information about experiments that confirm the > heavy-electrons. Do you know of a reference that is available on the web > to which I may be directed? Please locate one that demonstrates a heavy > electron with an energy of at least 100 keV to be within the ballpark of > the 780 keV required. Also, I need information about heavy electrons that > are not moving in free space. > > Dave > > > -Original Message- > From: Alain Sepeda > To: vortex-l > Sent: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 8:05 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > About animosity it was with ed storms against the WL theory. > > however I don't see the advantage of this theory on others. > The usage of quantum coherence to justify bypassing the coulomb barrier, > is not different from similar assumption in WL, kim-zubarev, TSC/OSC, > Brillouin, and basically from old preparata and Einstein general vision... > at least the heavy electrons, the SPP, coherent protons, are well-known > animals. > > the critic about multiplication ratio from .1ev to 760kEv is not so > justified, because anyway heavy-electrons exists in other systems... > and the coherence needed to ensure the proposed screening is not less > shocking than protons coherence needed by WL. Proton coherence is even > observed independently. > the whole story of WL is harder to accept than the details, especially the > macroscopically isotropic gamma shielding, but all is hard to swallow in > that domain. > Brillouin bypass the gamma shielding with a theory (4H beta decay)that is > not so different from WL, just changing the final scenario. > Kim Zubarev is different, but of the same vein, initiated by Preparatta... > > I even think that some ideas could be mixed. > Cracks, Q-wave could create and activate nano-antennas, causing SPP, on > BEC of protons/electrons, activating WL inverse beta , then following > H->D->T->4H->4He, and few classic neutrons absorption, creating crack and > q-wave... > > > by teh way, I realized that Preparata wiki page > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Preparata > does not talk about his work on cold fusion theory > > http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/17/prescient-1994-insights-from-fleischmann-pons-and-preparata-on-lenr-theory/ > and his initial intuition... > > 2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro > >> ** >> No animosity against W&L. Like I said, I don't have a pet theory to >> promote or debunk. I consider all theories as possible explanations. >> >> It's just that, Ed's new model appears to be superior to W&L's convoluted >> steps. Ed's straightforward protium fusion is more consistent with >> observed results. >> >> Axil's theory appears to be even better. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Alain Sepeda >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2012 5:04 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model >> >> heavy electrons are observed already in, very different situation at >> surface of solids. >> are they totally different from the one WL assume ? >> maybe they are of lower energy, but is it so far from the needed
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
I would like to review information about experiments that confirm the heavy-electrons. Do you know of a reference that is available on the web to which I may be directed? Please locate one that demonstrates a heavy electron with an energy of at least 100 keV to be within the ballpark of the 780 keV required. Also, I need information about heavy electrons that are not moving in free space. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 8:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model About animosity it was with ed storms against the WL theory. however I don't see the advantage of this theory on others. The usage of quantum coherence to justify bypassing the coulomb barrier, is not different from similar assumption in WL, kim-zubarev, TSC/OSC, Brillouin, and basically from old preparata and Einstein general vision... at least the heavy electrons, the SPP, coherent protons, are well-known animals. the critic about multiplication ratio from .1ev to 760kEv is not so justified, because anyway heavy-electrons exists in other systems... and the coherence needed to ensure the proposed screening is not less shocking than protons coherence needed by WL. Proton coherence is even observed independently. the whole story of WL is harder to accept than the details, especially the macroscopically isotropic gamma shielding, but all is hard to swallow in that domain. Brillouin bypass the gamma shielding with a theory (4H beta decay)that is not so different from WL, just changing the final scenario. Kim Zubarev is different, but of the same vein, initiated by Preparatta... I even think that some ideas could be mixed. Cracks, Q-wave could create and activate nano-antennas, causing SPP, on BEC of protons/electrons, activating WL inverse beta , then following H->D->T->4H->4He, and few classic neutrons absorption, creating crack and q-wave... by teh way, I realized that Preparata wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Preparata does not talk about his work on cold fusion theory http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/17/prescient-1994-insights-from-fleischmann-pons-and-preparata-on-lenr-theory/ and his initial intuition... 2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro No animosity against W&L. Like I said, I don't have a pet theory to promote or debunk. I consider all theories as possible explanations. It's just that, Ed's new model appears to be superior to W&L's convoluted steps. Ed's straightforward protium fusion is more consistent with observed results. Axil's theory appears to be even better. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model heavy electrons are observed already in, very different situation at surface of solids. are they totally different from the one WL assume ? maybe they are of lower energy, but is it so far from the needed energy for WL to happens. about electrons, is it rational to interpret electrons as individual. I thought that is was a property inside space (a field), and that electrons as particle are just a propagation mode in void. in solid, with interaction with other and with other field it might be (and is ) very different. think also for protons. note that interpreting hydrogen as atomic is not so evident, because inside a metal the electron might be shared with the metal, and the proton swimming separately inside, maybe interfering (as a similar but distinct field) with colleagues. the atomic interpretation of hydrogen seems to consider hydrogen is an independent solid/liquid in the crack, while it may be a complex plasma inside crystal. by the way quantum coherence assumptionof WL, is the same used for the shielding theory. Both theories assume some quantum interference, and not to interpret particle or atoms as marbles. I don't understand the animosity against WL, yet I understand that it is only one in many possibilities that share the following ideas : - imply high surface NAE - imply local instabilities - imply quantum coherence to overcame high energy barrier 2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very accurate analogy. In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the lead car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true when the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this case all the kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic collision. As Ed correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental particle that CAN NOT "store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism can be found that can do this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy into one electron, and do it at a rate consistent with the energy
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
About animosity it was with ed storms against the WL theory. however I don't see the advantage of this theory on others. The usage of quantum coherence to justify bypassing the coulomb barrier, is not different from similar assumption in WL, kim-zubarev, TSC/OSC, Brillouin, and basically from old preparata and Einstein general vision... at least the heavy electrons, the SPP, coherent protons, are well-known animals. the critic about multiplication ratio from .1ev to 760kEv is not so justified, because anyway heavy-electrons exists in other systems... and the coherence needed to ensure the proposed screening is not less shocking than protons coherence needed by WL. Proton coherence is even observed independently. the whole story of WL is harder to accept than the details, especially the macroscopically isotropic gamma shielding, but all is hard to swallow in that domain. Brillouin bypass the gamma shielding with a theory (4H beta decay)that is not so different from WL, just changing the final scenario. Kim Zubarev is different, but of the same vein, initiated by Preparatta... I even think that some ideas could be mixed. Cracks, Q-wave could create and activate nano-antennas, causing SPP, on BEC of protons/electrons, activating WL inverse beta , then following H->D->T->4H->4He, and few classic neutrons absorption, creating crack and q-wave... by teh way, I realized that Preparata wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Preparata does not talk about his work on cold fusion theory http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/01/17/prescient-1994-insights-from-fleischmann-pons-and-preparata-on-lenr-theory/ and his initial intuition... 2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro > ** > No animosity against W&L. Like I said, I don't have a pet theory to > promote or debunk. I consider all theories as possible explanations. > > It's just that, Ed's new model appears to be superior to W&L's convoluted > steps. Ed's straightforward protium fusion is more consistent with > observed results. > > Axil's theory appears to be even better. > > > Jojo > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Alain Sepeda > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2012 5:04 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > heavy electrons are observed already in, very different situation at > surface of solids. > are they totally different from the one WL assume ? > maybe they are of lower energy, but is it so far from the needed energy > for WL to happens. > > > > about electrons, is it rational to interpret electrons as individual. > I thought that is was a property inside space (a field), and that > electrons as particle are just a propagation mode in void. > in solid, with interaction with other and with other field it might be > (and is ) very different. > > think also for protons. note that interpreting hydrogen as atomic is not > so evident, because inside a metal the electron might be shared with the > metal, and the proton swimming separately inside, maybe interfering (as a > similar but distinct field) with colleagues. > > the atomic interpretation of hydrogen seems to consider hydrogen is an > independent solid/liquid in the crack, while it may be a complex plasma > inside crystal. > > by the way quantum coherence assumptionof WL, is the same used for the > shielding theory. > > Both theories assume some quantum interference, and not to interpret > particle or atoms as marbles. > > I don't understand the animosity against WL, yet I understand that it is > only one in many possibilities that share the following ideas : > - imply high surface NAE > - imply local instabilities > - imply quantum coherence to overcame high energy barrier > > > 2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro > >> Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very >> accurate analogy. >> >> In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the >> lead car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true >> when the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this >> case all the kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic >> collision. As Ed correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental >> particle that CAN NOT "store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism >> can be found that can do this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy >> into one electron, and do it at a rate consistent with the energy release >> rate obversed, then find a mechanism that can create ULMN at the correct >> rates, then W&L might become a viable explanation. >> >> One of the major objections to W&L is that the
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
No animosity against W&L. Like I said, I don't have a pet theory to promote or
debunk. I consider all theories as possible explanations.
It's just that, Ed's new model appears to be superior to W&L's convoluted
steps. Ed's straightforward protium fusion is more consistent with observed
results.
Axil's theory appears to be even better.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Alain Sepeda
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
heavy electrons are observed already in, very different situation at surface
of solids.
are they totally different from the one WL assume ?
maybe they are of lower energy, but is it so far from the needed energy for
WL to happens.
about electrons, is it rational to interpret electrons as individual.
I thought that is was a property inside space (a field), and that electrons
as particle are just a propagation mode in void.
in solid, with interaction with other and with other field it might be (and
is ) very different.
think also for protons. note that interpreting hydrogen as atomic is not so
evident, because inside a metal the electron might be shared with the metal,
and the proton swimming separately inside, maybe interfering (as a similar but
distinct field) with colleagues.
the atomic interpretation of hydrogen seems to consider hydrogen is an
independent solid/liquid in the crack, while it may be a complex plasma inside
crystal.
by the way quantum coherence assumptionof WL, is the same used for the
shielding theory.
Both theories assume some quantum interference, and not to interpret particle
or atoms as marbles.
I don't understand the animosity against WL, yet I understand that it is
only one in many possibilities that share the following ideas :
- imply high surface NAE
- imply local instabilities
- imply quantum coherence to overcame high energy barrier
2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro
Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very
accurate analogy.
In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the lead
car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true when the
lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this case all the
kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic collision. As Ed
correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental particle that CAN NOT
"store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism can be found that can do
this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy into one electron, and do it at
a rate consistent with the energy release rate obversed, then find a mechanism
that can create ULMN at the correct rates, then W&L might become a viable
explanation.
One of the major objections to W&L is that the 'reaction rates" are all
inconsistent. It's one thing to imagine a plausible mechanism, it's another
thing for that mechansim to occur at rates sufficient to explain the
phenomenom. It's all a question of probability and rates.
This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in
this thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these
mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to
explain the phenomenom.
BTW: the 0.1eV is the surrounding energy. Ed's point is that 0.76MeV must
be harvested from a chemical sea of energy whose average is less than 0.1 eV.
Hence a concentration of over 7,000,000 times. Ed does bring up a very good
point. Whatever mechanism we propose, it must be consistent with known
mechanisms known to operate in a known chemical environment. Lou's explanation
appears to be inconsistent with what we generally know about the behavior in
such chemical environment.
But as always; I am all ears to any corrections to my understanding, and I
am willing to be wrong.
Jojo
----- Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder"
To:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, wrote:
Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents.
The electric field can also provide analogous coupling.
A mechanical analog
- One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m
hill
- but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily
Nice analogy.
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
heavy electrons are observed already in, very different situation at surface of solids. are they totally different from the one WL assume ? maybe they are of lower energy, but is it so far from the needed energy for WL to happens. about electrons, is it rational to interpret electrons as individual. I thought that is was a property inside space (a field), and that electrons as particle are just a propagation mode in void. in solid, with interaction with other and with other field it might be (and is ) very different. think also for protons. note that interpreting hydrogen as atomic is not so evident, because inside a metal the electron might be shared with the metal, and the proton swimming separately inside, maybe interfering (as a similar but distinct field) with colleagues. the atomic interpretation of hydrogen seems to consider hydrogen is an independent solid/liquid in the crack, while it may be a complex plasma inside crystal. by the way quantum coherence assumptionof WL, is the same used for the shielding theory. Both theories assume some quantum interference, and not to interpret particle or atoms as marbles. I don't understand the animosity against WL, yet I understand that it is only one in many possibilities that share the following ideas : - imply high surface NAE - imply local instabilities - imply quantum coherence to overcame high energy barrier 2012/6/11 Jojo Jaro > Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very > accurate analogy. > > In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the lead > car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true when > the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this case > all the kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic collision. > As Ed correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental particle that > CAN NOT "store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism can be found > that can do this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy into one > electron, and do it at a rate consistent with the energy release rate > obversed, then find a mechanism that can create ULMN at the correct rates, > then W&L might become a viable explanation. > > One of the major objections to W&L is that the 'reaction rates" are all > inconsistent. It's one thing to imagine a plausible mechanism, it's > another thing for that mechansim to occur at rates sufficient to explain > the phenomenom. It's all a question of probability and rates. > > This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in > this thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these > mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to > explain the phenomenom. > > BTW: the 0.1eV is the surrounding energy. Ed's point is that 0.76MeV must > be harvested from a chemical sea of energy whose average is less than 0.1 > eV. Hence a concentration of over 7,000,000 times. Ed does bring up a > very good point. Whatever mechanism we propose, it must be consistent with > known mechanisms known to operate in a known chemical environment. Lou's > explanation appears to be inconsistent with what we generally know about > the behavior in such chemical environment. > > But as always; I am all ears to any corrections to my understanding, and I > am willing to be wrong. > > > Jojo > > > > > > > - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:51 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, wrote: >> >> >>> Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. >>> The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. >>> >>> A mechanical analog >>> >>> - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m >>> hill >>> - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily >>> >> >> Nice analogy. >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > > This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in > this thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these > mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to > explain the phenomenom. > It seems to me that the matter of rates is straightforward. Assume a mechanism in which a large percentage of the gammas that are emitted feed back into the process. This is an important assumption, but it is not that off-the-wall, I suspect. Almost any plausible fusion event that we can enlist for generating our helium and power will release high energy photons. This is an inconvenient fact that will bedevil any explanation but which we we seem to periodically forget. We somehow want to make the photons go away without doing anything with them. Doing that is as magical as assuming that a large percentage of photons feed back into the system. Concerning cosmic rays, perhaps in the older Pd/D experiments they served to jump start the reaction where spark plugs will do the trick in the newer setups. But once the reaction gets going, it becomes self-sustaining somehow and does not require cosmic rays anymore. Science and technology owe a huge debt to science fiction. We once thought of a kind of electric book, where you could pull up all kinds of information, and now we have tablet computers. We once thought of sending people to the moon, and then we did it. We once conceived of the possibility of traveling under the water, and then it happened. So even though science fiction has often gotten things wrong and has been harebrained about many of its assumptions, not infrequently it has led to new avenues of exploration and discovery. In the spirit of science fiction, here are two more possible pathways for cold fusion. Assume an elongated cavity in a nickel substrate. 1. Assume the cavity is an optical cavity, such that a photon that enters in one side will reverberate back and forth within it. Assume the cavity is loaded with hydrogen or deuterium by way of gas loading or electrolysis, and that a high energy photon, in the hundreds of keV, enters the system. The photon interacts with a nearby hydrogen atom and is reemitted back into the cavity at a lower frequency, imparting part of its energy to the hydrogen atom in the form of kinetic energy. The new, lower-frequency photon bounces around and then interacts with another hydrogen atom, imparting kinetic energy and being reemitted at yet a lower frequency. This continues until a sort of thermal equilibrium is attained among the hydrogen atoms. The photon eventually leaves the system as a soft x-ray. The hydrogen atoms are now very energetic. 2. A high energy photon enters the cavity, causing electrons to be ejected from the walls of the cavity. As the photon bounced around, more electrons are ejected. A kind of electron pressure builds up that turns the cavity into an oven, heating the hydrogen atoms to a very high temperature. I don't think either of these approaches would require neutron formation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
*However, I think you identified an important problem - electromagnetically coupled charged particles can behave in very strange counterintuitive ways. Common sense may be failing us and leading us astray in LENR. * See my posts under the many worlds of charge screening. On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:06 PM, wrote: > Jaro, > > Of course all explanations should be considered with suspicion when rare > (possibly imaginary), counterintuitive LENR events occur. > > It is relatively easy to contrive more mechanical examples in 3-d, say > with balls coupled with elastic springs impacting a randomly placed > obstacle. > > However, I think you identified an important problem - electromagnetically > coupled charged particles can behave in very strange counterintuitive > ways. > Common sense may be failing us and leading us astray in LENR. > > I do not think field energy is stored in an electron. > I think it is more accurate to regard it as delocalized. > Equating the energy an electron can deliver during a collision only with > its kinetic energy is probably pretty accurate when sparsely distributed > particles collide in accelerators, but not when in dense coherent beams. > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > > Jaro wrote: > > > Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very > > accurate analogy. > > > > In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the > lead > > car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true > when > > the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this > case > > all the kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic collision. > > As Ed correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental particle that > > CAN > > NOT "store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism can be found > that > > can do this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy into one electron, > > and do it at a rate consistent with the energy release rate obversed, > then > > find a mechanism that can create ULMN at the correct rates, then W&L > might > > become a viable explanation. > > > > One of the major objections to W&L is that the 'reaction rates" are all > > inconsistent. It's one thing to imagine a plausible mechanism, it's > > another > > thing for that mechansim to occur at rates sufficient to explain the > > phenomenom. It's all a question of probability and rates. > > > > This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in > > this > > thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these > > mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to > > explain the phenomenom. > > > > BTW: the 0.1eV is the surrounding energy. Ed's point is that 0.76MeV > must > > be harvested from a chemical sea of energy whose average is less than 0.1 > > eV. Hence a concentration of over 7,000,000 times. Ed does bring up a > > very > > good point. Whatever mechanism we propose, it must be consistent with > > known > > mechanisms known to operate in a known chemical environment. Lou's > > explanation appears to be inconsistent with what we generally know about > > the > > behavior in such chemical environment. > > > > But as always; I am all ears to any corrections to my understanding, and > I > > am willing to be wrong. > > > > > > Jojo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Harry Veeder" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:51 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > > > > >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. > >>> The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. > >>> > >>> A mechanical analog > >>> > >>> - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m > >>> hill > >>> - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily > >> > >> Nice analogy. > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Excellent questions. I will try to find some good references. But, I think only masochists try to understand magnetism. Dave Roberson wrote: > > What happens if you assume a frame of reference that is at the same > velocity as the moving electrons? No relative motion exists under that > condition to allow coupling. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Harry Veeder > To: vortex-l > Sent: Sun, Jun 10, 2012 1:52 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, wrote: >> > Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. > The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. > > A mechanical analog > > - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m > hill > - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily > Nice analogy. >> I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges >> cannot > be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. > > I do like Storms's approach. > I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can > focus incident fields many thousands of times. > The fields must be focused millions of times according to Ed. > he tracks keep the train of cars "rigid" otherwise a small bump would > ake the lead car veer off course. > o either you need tracks or a smooth terrain. > harry > >
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Jaro, Of course all explanations should be considered with suspicion when rare (possibly imaginary), counterintuitive LENR events occur. It is relatively easy to contrive more mechanical examples in 3-d, say with balls coupled with elastic springs impacting a randomly placed obstacle. However, I think you identified an important problem - electromagnetically coupled charged particles can behave in very strange counterintuitive ways. Common sense may be failing us and leading us astray in LENR. I do not think field energy is stored in an electron. I think it is more accurate to regard it as delocalized. Equating the energy an electron can deliver during a collision only with its kinetic energy is probably pretty accurate when sparsely distributed particles collide in accelerators, but not when in dense coherent beams. -- Lou Pagnucco Jaro wrote: > Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very > accurate analogy. > > In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the lead > car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true when > the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this case > all the kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic collision. > As Ed correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental particle that > CAN > NOT "store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism can be found that > can do this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy into one electron, > and do it at a rate consistent with the energy release rate obversed, then > find a mechanism that can create ULMN at the correct rates, then W&L might > become a viable explanation. > > One of the major objections to W&L is that the 'reaction rates" are all > inconsistent. It's one thing to imagine a plausible mechanism, it's > another > thing for that mechansim to occur at rates sufficient to explain the > phenomenom. It's all a question of probability and rates. > > This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in > this > thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these > mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to > explain the phenomenom. > > BTW: the 0.1eV is the surrounding energy. Ed's point is that 0.76MeV must > be harvested from a chemical sea of energy whose average is less than 0.1 > eV. Hence a concentration of over 7,000,000 times. Ed does bring up a > very > good point. Whatever mechanism we propose, it must be consistent with > known > mechanisms known to operate in a known chemical environment. Lou's > explanation appears to be inconsistent with what we generally know about > the > behavior in such chemical environment. > > But as always; I am all ears to any corrections to my understanding, and I > am willing to be wrong. > > > Jojo > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Harry Veeder" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:51 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, wrote: >> >>> >>> Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. >>> The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. >>> >>> A mechanical analog >>> >>> - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m >>> hill >>> - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily >> >> Nice analogy. > > >
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very accurate analogy. In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the lead car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true when the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this case all the kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic collision. As Ed correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental particle that CAN NOT "store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism can be found that can do this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy into one electron, and do it at a rate consistent with the energy release rate obversed, then find a mechanism that can create ULMN at the correct rates, then W&L might become a viable explanation. One of the major objections to W&L is that the 'reaction rates" are all inconsistent. It's one thing to imagine a plausible mechanism, it's another thing for that mechansim to occur at rates sufficient to explain the phenomenom. It's all a question of probability and rates. This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in this thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to explain the phenomenom. BTW: the 0.1eV is the surrounding energy. Ed's point is that 0.76MeV must be harvested from a chemical sea of energy whose average is less than 0.1 eV. Hence a concentration of over 7,000,000 times. Ed does bring up a very good point. Whatever mechanism we propose, it must be consistent with known mechanisms known to operate in a known chemical environment. Lou's explanation appears to be inconsistent with what we generally know about the behavior in such chemical environment. But as always; I am all ears to any corrections to my understanding, and I am willing to be wrong. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" To: Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, wrote: Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. A mechanical analog - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m hill - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily Nice analogy.
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
What happens if you assume a frame of reference that is at the same velocity as the moving electrons? No relative motion exists under that condition to allow coupling. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Jun 10, 2012 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, wrote: > Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. A mechanical analog - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m hill - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily Nice analogy. > I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges cannot be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. I do like Storms's approach. I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can focus incident fields many thousands of times. The fields must be focused millions of times according to Ed. he tracks keep the train of cars "rigid" otherwise a small bump would ake the lead car veer off course. o either you need tracks or a smooth terrain. harry
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
I have been attempting to understand how the many electrons couple together to allow one to achieve the .78 MeV energy. Does this mechanism behave in a manner that is substantially different than normal where an electron is subject to motion due to an electric field? I picture myself riding upon one electron contained within a sea of them moving together at the same velocity. Since they are at rest relative to me, there is no force acting upon my test element due to them. I assume that there is a balancing positive charge consisting of the surrounding nuclei available to keep the standard Coulomb forces at bay. The motion of the positive charges relative to my electron ride could be thought of as the source of a magnetic field since they would constitute an electric current. I think that this positive current flow generates a magnetic field that is at right angles to its relative motion and thus ours. Any change to our relative velocity would be met with the magnetic field and deflected at right angles. Could this behavior be connected to the strange effect? The magnitude of the force generated would be proportional to the number of electrons contained within our group. I am having a difficult time locating any strange coupling mechanism between electrons that are in constant relative motion to each other. It has been my experience that constant motion among a group of particles is equivalent to no motion at all in a frame of reference that matches the motion. The lack of relative motion suggests that there would be no unusual coupling. Ed is asking a good question in my opinion. I think he suggests that the fusion is between a group of components that include a P+ e- P+ combination. This fusion would only be subject to an Coulomb barrier of ~.1 MeV since the Protons have a charge of +1 unit each. I am not sure about the magnitude of shielding that comes along with the electron, but it would lower that barrier somewhat. This is at least 8 times less energy than required to construct a neutron from its two main parts. Perhaps it would be a good idea to generate a list of all of the neutron generation techniques that have been proven and accepted to see if any clues arise about the relative difficulty seen in their generation. I am aware of sources derived from fusion and fission processes that are well documented. Are there well known and effective generation techniques of a subtle nature involving large current pulses that we should consider? Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Jun 10, 2012 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model Fair questions, Jaro, Yes, there is a 782 Kev barrier to overcome. Maybe I misunderstand the objection, but why is "0.1 ev" relevant? Google "superfocusing nanoantenna plasmon" - aren't the electrons in ields of nanostructure hotspots vastly more energetic than that? our starting baseline and the "7,000,000 times" figure may be incorrect. A possible energy focusing mechanism (for the magnetic field case) is the Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian). ee, for example, equation(29) on p.8 of - 'Hidden' Momentum of a Steady Current Distribution in a System at 'Rest'" ttp://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/current.pdf his momentum is inconsequential in normal currents with very slow lecrron drift velocities, but potentially huge in quasi-ballistic eams/currents. Storms equates an electron's energy with its kinetic (m(v^2)/2) energy. his figure is also in the Darwin Lagrangian, but so are a huge number of cross terms" of "generalized momentum" due to inter-electron couplings. Say we have 10,000,000 electrons all moving roughly in parallel and at the ame speed. Let's attach subscripts to those electrons so that their elocity vectors are designated v1, v2, v3, ..., v1000. Lets say the lectron with velocity v1 is in a collision. Then the energy it can eliver includes the usually kinetic energy proportional to the v1*v1 term dot product), but also includes the 9,999,999 weighted cross-terms, 1*v2, v1*v3, v1*v4, ..., v1*v1000. While in diffusive currents these terms sum up destructively, in coherent urrents, they add up constructively and can be huge. So, maybe, an lectron in a coherent beam can breach potential barriers much higher than e normally think. It may also be worth computing how an electron's magnetic field energy can warf its kinetic energy in nanostructures. or example, see (and plug in some nano-sized numbers into formulas at:) How Much of Magnetic Energy Is Kinetic Energy?" ttp://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf -- Lou Pagnucco aro Jaro wrote: Just to add to my earlier thought. Ed calculates that the energy of formation for a neutron is 0.76MeV. This energy must be concentrated
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
I wrote: > Suppose you have a crack that serves as an antenna, along the lines Lou > has suggested. Now add a soup of free electrons in the vicinity of the > crack (a plasmon). Now bring in a cosmic ray or a gamma ray from an > earlier event. The high-energy incoming photon does something funny with > the crack and the plasmon, and perhaps as with a lightning bolt or a staple > gun, a free proton in the area is zapped (with a loud crackle, one > imagines). There you have all the energy needed to create a neutron. No > need for a magical localization of energy from a low-energy environment. > Or for that matter, perhaps there would be enough energy to produce some interesting billiards, if the incoming photon carried on an ejected electron is able to jostle things around in the cavity enough (e.g., produce a normal fusion reaction). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Axil, very interesting! Boiling this down to its essence, it means that we can exploit the intrinsic features of nature by forcing them into carbon-monolayers, onedimensional structures plus quantum-computers, which compute the Doug Adams number. Ultimatley we trim down the second law to slightly above zero and having an IQ 1000+, plus having a millon times more energy at our disposal thanks to LENR, travelling through wormholes, visiting strange solar systems, meeting strange creatures there and killing them all. Happy days. I am still unsure what that means, and how this serves me as a basic, humble human being, enclosed in circular time and such. In 10^100yrs 'I' am here again, wondering. This is my inner Buddhist speaking. Have to kill him. all the best Guenther Von: Axil Axil An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 20:58 Sonntag, 10.Juni 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model >>In the quantum world of the crack, one concept that needs a place at the >>table is Luttinger liquids
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
In the quantum world of the crack, one concept that needs a place at the table is Luttinger liquids. This concept has recently been established as a fundamental paradigm vital to our understanding of the properties of one-dimensional quantum systems, which has only recently led to a number of theoretical breakthroughs in understanding how electrons behave in the one-dimensional world. To expand the explanation, in our everyday real life experience, we live in a three-dimensional world. Phenomena in a world of the crack with only one spatial dimension may appear an esoteric subject, and for a long time it was perceived as such. But today, this is changing as our knowledge of matter’s inner atomic structure has evolved. It appears that in many real-life materials a chain-like pattern of overlapping atomic orbitals leaves electrons belonging on these orbitals with only one dimension where they can freely travel. With the nano-patterned microchips and nano-wires heading into consumer electronics, the question “how do electrons behave in one dimension?” is no longer a theoretical playground but something that a curious mind might ask when thinking of how his or her computer works. One-dimensional problems being mathematically simpler, a number of exact solutions describing “model” one-dimensional systems were known to theorists for years. Only recently has the conformal field theory of the constrained dimensional movement of the electron been consolidated and experimentally verified. Our past knowledge has now been put together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and predicts remarkable universal critical behavior for one-dimensional systems. The world of one dimension is full of surprises that we can readily appreciate if we can use our imaginations The geometry of one dimension has its special rules and is more restrictive than we would imagine. In the one dimensional world, two objects cannot move past one another unless they can penetrate each other; the one on the right will always remain on the right, and the one on the left will always be on the left. Hence, a clear distinction between the two fundamental types of particles, those obeying Bose and Fermi statistics, disappears in the one-dimensional world. Indeed, the difference between bosons and fermions comes into play in quantum mechanics when two particles swap places. This has no effect for the system of bosons but changes the sign of the wave function for fermions. If particles never swap places, the system’s descriptions in terms of Bose and Fermi elementary excitations are equally legitimate, the choice being just a matter of convenience as the non-interacting fermions are equivalent to strongly interacting bosons and vice versa. The one dimensional quantum field theory theorists have developed a new technique known as “bosonisation” which provides a unified description of the one-dimensional world of the electron. When cracks develop on the surface of metals, we enter the world of one dimensional electron flow were bosonisation and Luttinger liquid theory apply. Furthermore, Fermi-liquid accurately predicts the properties of “usual”, three-dimensional metals, but fails dramatically in one dimension. In the volume in and immediate around the crack, we must use the new concept of a Luttinger liquid to understand the way electrons behave. A Luttinger liquid theory predicts universal properties for the great variety of one dimensional systems, including the electronic states of carbon nanotubes and nanowires, conducting properties of conjugated polymers and fluid behavior of Bose liquids confined within one dimensional nano-capillaries. The simplest and best studied example of the Luttinger liquid is a chain of quantum spins ½ where the energy depends on the misalignment of the nearest neighbors. The detection of superconductive behavior in and around cracks by Miley might be understood as a consequence of the “bosonisation” of electrons due to the one dimensional electron flow were electrons become ballistic and can ignore impurities that would usually restrict electron flow in three dimensions. I believe that this appearance of superconductive behavior of electron flow is an important clue to the one dimensional nature of electron behavior in and around the crack that Ed Storms is addressing. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> >> Ed calculates that the energy of formation for a neutron is 0.76MeV. >> This energy must be concentrated from a "sea" of energy less than 0.1 eV. >> > > Not necessarily. That's only one of several approaches. > > Suppose you have a crack that serves as an antenna, along the lines Lou > has suggested. Now add a soup of free electrons in the vicinity of the > crack (a plasmon). Now bring in a cosmic ray or a gamma ray from an > earlier event. The high-energy incoming photon does something funny w
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > > Ed calculates that the energy of formation for a neutron is 0.76MeV. This > energy must be concentrated from a "sea" of energy less than 0.1 eV. > Not necessarily. That's only one of several approaches. Suppose you have a crack that serves as an antenna, along the lines Lou has suggested. Now add a soup of free electrons in the vicinity of the crack (a plasmon). Now bring in a cosmic ray or a gamma ray from an earlier event. The high-energy incoming photon does something funny with the crack and the plasmon, and perhaps as with a lightning bolt or a staple gun, a free proton in the area is zapped (with a loud crackle, one imagines). There you have all the energy needed to create a neutron. No need for a magical localization of energy from a low-energy environment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, wrote: > > Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. > The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. > > A mechanical analog > > - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m hill > - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily Nice analogy. > I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges cannot > be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. > > I do like Storms's approach. > I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can > focus incident fields many thousands of times. The fields must be focused millions of times according to Ed. The tracks keep the train of cars "rigid" otherwise a small bump would make the lead car veer off course. So either you need tracks or a smooth terrain. harry
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Fair questions, Jaro, Yes, there is a 782 Kev barrier to overcome. Maybe I misunderstand the objection, but why is "0.1 ev" relevant? Google "superfocusing nanoantenna plasmon" - aren't the electrons in fields of nanostructure hotspots vastly more energetic than that? Your starting baseline and the "7,000,000 times" figure may be incorrect. A possible energy focusing mechanism (for the magnetic field case) is the "Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian). See, for example, equation(29) on p.8 of - "'Hidden' Momentum of a Steady Current Distribution in a System at 'Rest'" http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/current.pdf This momentum is inconsequential in normal currents with very slow elecrron drift velocities, but potentially huge in quasi-ballistic beams/currents. Storms equates an electron's energy with its kinetic (m(v^2)/2) energy. This figure is also in the Darwin Lagrangian, but so are a huge number of "cross terms" of "generalized momentum" due to inter-electron couplings. Say we have 10,000,000 electrons all moving roughly in parallel and at the same speed. Let's attach subscripts to those electrons so that their velocity vectors are designated v1, v2, v3, ..., v1000. Lets say the electron with velocity v1 is in a collision. Then the energy it can deliver includes the usually kinetic energy proportional to the v1*v1 term (dot product), but also includes the 9,999,999 weighted cross-terms, v1*v2, v1*v3, v1*v4, ..., v1*v1000. While in diffusive currents these terms sum up destructively, in coherent currents, they add up constructively and can be huge. So, maybe, an electron in a coherent beam can breach potential barriers much higher than we normally think. It may also be worth computing how an electron's magnetic field energy can dwarf its kinetic energy in nanostructures. For example, see (and plug in some nano-sized numbers into formulas at:) "How Much of Magnetic Energy Is Kinetic Energy?" http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf -- Lou Pagnucco Jaro Jaro wrote: > Just to add to my earlier thought. > > Ed calculates that the energy of formation for a neutron is 0.76MeV. This > energy must be concentrated from a "sea" of energy less than 0.1 eV. > > What mechanism will accumulate energy over 7,000,000 times its > concentration, and concentrate it on one location to enable the formation > of > a single Neutron. Now consider this mechanism operating billions of times > to enable the reaction rates proposed by W&L to take place. Even Ahern's > explanation by collective oscillations of nanomagnetism seems inadequate > for > this task. > > I'm with Ed on this one. Seems his explanation is more probable compared > to > W&L's ULMN miracles. > > Did I understand this correctly? Where did I go wrong on this? Lou, > please > explain if you have one. I am willing to be wrong on this. I have no Pet > Theory to back or to discredit. > > > Jojo > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jojo Jaro" > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 2:09 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > >> If I understand you correctly, what you are proposing is similar to >> Ahern's collective oscillons explanation; that random movements tend to >> conglomerate together to "concentrate" energy that would organize >> electrons contrary to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. >> >> That idea is intriguing if I understood it correctly. Can you propose >> an >> experimental setup to verify or falsify that idea? I'm all ears and >> willing to set up such an experiment. >> >> But, even if that were true, how does it provide enough energy on one >> location enough to create a neutron? And an Ultra-low Momemtum neutron >> at >> that. >> >> So, I guess you're a free "neutron" person :-) >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:59 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model >> >> >>> On p.10 of "An explanation of low energy nuclear reactions", Storms >>> tries to rebut Widom-Larsen theory of electron capture: >>> >>> "On the other hand, neutrons have been proposed to form[56-61] by >>> fusion of an electron with a proton or deuteron, which requires about >>> 0.76 MeV to be present at the time and place of the reaction. Because >>> this explanation of LENR has gotten wide
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Hello Jaro, First, I am not proposing anyone's theory. I am citing classical physics analogs to W-L theory that look supportive. Since I don't know Ahern's theory, I can't comment on it. I'm not sure why you think the 2nd law is violated. Concentrating energy can be done in many ways - with antennas, magnifying glasses, nail tips, superfocusing nanostructures, etc..., all okay with the laws thermodynamics. The electrons in a coherent beam are tightly and stiffly coupled. Perhaps another analogy is to compare how a 100 km/hr rock can break a window, but if broken into powder cannot. As far as suggesting an experiment, I would like to see whether the transmutations due to electron beams reported in -- "A Review of Transmutation and Clustering in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" - M.A. Prelas, G.H. Miley, et al research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/Prelas.ppt -- could be replicated. Jaro Jaro wrote: > If I understand you correctly, what you are proposing is similar to > Ahern's > collective oscillons explanation; that random movements tend to > conglomerate > together to "concentrate" energy that would organize electrons contrary to > the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. > > That idea is intriguing if I understood it correctly. Can you propose an > experimental setup to verify or falsify that idea? I'm all ears and > willing > to set up such an experiment. > > But, even if that were true, how does it provide enough energy on one > location enough to create a neutron? And an Ultra-low Momemtum neutron at > that. > > So, I guess you're a free "neutron" person :-) > > > Jojo > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:59 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > >> On p.10 of "An explanation of low energy nuclear reactions", Storms >> tries to rebut Widom-Larsen theory of electron capture: >> >> "On the other hand, neutrons have been proposed to form[56-61] by >> fusion of an electron with a proton or deuteron, which requires about >> 0.76 MeV to be present at the time and place of the reaction. Because >> this explanation of LENR has gotten wide attention, it needs to be >> fully understood. The idea is flawed because it assumes enough energy >> to form a neutron can be concentrated in a chemical environment at one >> location. Energy is a real and basic quantity that is not observed to >> accumulate spontaneously beyond well-understood limits.1 If such large >> energy were to concentrate in an electron or the target nucleus, it >> would have to be harvested from an environment in which the average >> energy is much less than 0.1 eV. Consequently, packets of energy would >> have to spontaneously seek out and add to individual electrons in >> which the accumulating energy must be stored. How is this storage >> accomplished? The electron is a fundamental particle that cannot store >> energy. If it could, its rest mass would not be constant..." >> >> Whether W-L theory is correct or not, I believe Storms is wrong here. >> >> The coupling of one electron via electric or magnetic fields to others >> in >> a coherent electron beam (i.e., its photon "dressing") can enormously >> increase its effective mass and its impact energy in collisions. >> >> If a single electron in a tightly coupled coherent beam of 10,000,000 >> electrons impacts another particle, I believe that electron will indeed >> concentrate some energy from the other 9,999,999 electrons. This >> coupling is evident in the "Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin >> Lagrangian. (e.g., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Lagrangian) >> For a general discussion on how the collective magnetic field stores >> energy that individual electrons can tap, see: >> "Thoughts on the magnetic vector potential" - Mark D. Semon, et al >> American Journal of Physics, vol.64(11), Nov.1996 pp.1361-9 >> http://www.uccs.edu/~jmarsh2/links/AJP-64-11-1361.pdf >> >> Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. >> The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. >> >> A mechanical analog >> >> - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m >> hill >> - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily >> >> I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges >> cannot >> be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. >> >> I do like Storms's approach. >
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Just to add to my earlier thought. Ed calculates that the energy of formation for a neutron is 0.76MeV. This energy must be concentrated from a "sea" of energy less than 0.1 eV. What mechanism will accumulate energy over 7,000,000 times its concentration, and concentrate it on one location to enable the formation of a single Neutron. Now consider this mechanism operating billions of times to enable the reaction rates proposed by W&L to take place. Even Ahern's explanation by collective oscillations of nanomagnetism seems inadequate for this task. I'm with Ed on this one. Seems his explanation is more probable compared to W&L's ULMN miracles. Did I understand this correctly? Where did I go wrong on this? Lou, please explain if you have one. I am willing to be wrong on this. I have no Pet Theory to back or to discredit. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Jojo Jaro" To: Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model If I understand you correctly, what you are proposing is similar to Ahern's collective oscillons explanation; that random movements tend to conglomerate together to "concentrate" energy that would organize electrons contrary to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. That idea is intriguing if I understood it correctly. Can you propose an experimental setup to verify or falsify that idea? I'm all ears and willing to set up such an experiment. But, even if that were true, how does it provide enough energy on one location enough to create a neutron? And an Ultra-low Momemtum neutron at that. So, I guess you're a free "neutron" person :-) Jojo - Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model On p.10 of "An explanation of low energy nuclear reactions", Storms tries to rebut Widom-Larsen theory of electron capture: "On the other hand, neutrons have been proposed to form[56-61] by fusion of an electron with a proton or deuteron, which requires about 0.76 MeV to be present at the time and place of the reaction. Because this explanation of LENR has gotten wide attention, it needs to be fully understood. The idea is flawed because it assumes enough energy to form a neutron can be concentrated in a chemical environment at one location. Energy is a real and basic quantity that is not observed to accumulate spontaneously beyond well-understood limits.1 If such large energy were to concentrate in an electron or the target nucleus, it would have to be harvested from an environment in which the average energy is much less than 0.1 eV. Consequently, packets of energy would have to spontaneously seek out and add to individual electrons in which the accumulating energy must be stored. How is this storage accomplished? The electron is a fundamental particle that cannot store energy. If it could, its rest mass would not be constant..." Whether W-L theory is correct or not, I believe Storms is wrong here. The coupling of one electron via electric or magnetic fields to others in a coherent electron beam (i.e., its photon "dressing") can enormously increase its effective mass and its impact energy in collisions. If a single electron in a tightly coupled coherent beam of 10,000,000 electrons impacts another particle, I believe that electron will indeed concentrate some energy from the other 9,999,999 electrons. This coupling is evident in the "Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin Lagrangian. (e.g., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Lagrangian) For a general discussion on how the collective magnetic field stores energy that individual electrons can tap, see: "Thoughts on the magnetic vector potential" - Mark D. Semon, et al American Journal of Physics, vol.64(11), Nov.1996 pp.1361-9 http://www.uccs.edu/~jmarsh2/links/AJP-64-11-1361.pdf Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. A mechanical analog - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m hill - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges cannot be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. I do like Storms's approach. I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can focus incident fields many thousands of times. -- Lou Pagnucco Jaro Jaro wrote: Hey Gang, I tried posting Ed Storm's new paper as an attachment to this forum as per Ed's request but it did not post properly. Hopefully, Jed has it posted on his site already. Jed, is it up on your site? What do you guys think of Ed Storm's new model of LENR. Ed seems to have pinned downt the exact
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
If I understand you correctly, what you are proposing is similar to Ahern's collective oscillons explanation; that random movements tend to conglomerate together to "concentrate" energy that would organize electrons contrary to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. That idea is intriguing if I understood it correctly. Can you propose an experimental setup to verify or falsify that idea? I'm all ears and willing to set up such an experiment. But, even if that were true, how does it provide enough energy on one location enough to create a neutron? And an Ultra-low Momemtum neutron at that. So, I guess you're a free "neutron" person :-) Jojo - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model On p.10 of "An explanation of low energy nuclear reactions", Storms tries to rebut Widom-Larsen theory of electron capture: "On the other hand, neutrons have been proposed to form[56-61] by fusion of an electron with a proton or deuteron, which requires about 0.76 MeV to be present at the time and place of the reaction. Because this explanation of LENR has gotten wide attention, it needs to be fully understood. The idea is flawed because it assumes enough energy to form a neutron can be concentrated in a chemical environment at one location. Energy is a real and basic quantity that is not observed to accumulate spontaneously beyond well-understood limits.1 If such large energy were to concentrate in an electron or the target nucleus, it would have to be harvested from an environment in which the average energy is much less than 0.1 eV. Consequently, packets of energy would have to spontaneously seek out and add to individual electrons in which the accumulating energy must be stored. How is this storage accomplished? The electron is a fundamental particle that cannot store energy. If it could, its rest mass would not be constant..." Whether W-L theory is correct or not, I believe Storms is wrong here. The coupling of one electron via electric or magnetic fields to others in a coherent electron beam (i.e., its photon "dressing") can enormously increase its effective mass and its impact energy in collisions. If a single electron in a tightly coupled coherent beam of 10,000,000 electrons impacts another particle, I believe that electron will indeed concentrate some energy from the other 9,999,999 electrons. This coupling is evident in the "Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin Lagrangian. (e.g., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Lagrangian) For a general discussion on how the collective magnetic field stores energy that individual electrons can tap, see: "Thoughts on the magnetic vector potential" - Mark D. Semon, et al American Journal of Physics, vol.64(11), Nov.1996 pp.1361-9 http://www.uccs.edu/~jmarsh2/links/AJP-64-11-1361.pdf Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. A mechanical analog - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m hill - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges cannot be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. I do like Storms's approach. I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can focus incident fields many thousands of times. -- Lou Pagnucco Jaro Jaro wrote: Hey Gang, I tried posting Ed Storm's new paper as an attachment to this forum as per Ed's request but it did not post properly. Hopefully, Jed has it posted on his site already. Jed, is it up on your site? What do you guys think of Ed Storm's new model of LENR. Ed seems to have pinned downt the exact conditions for the creation of a Nuclear Active Environment (NAE). I am not smart enough to fully undrestand his new model or its ramifications. I'm hoping the smart folks here could break it down and discuss it. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
On p.10 of "An explanation of low energy nuclear reactions", Storms tries to rebut Widom-Larsen theory of electron capture: "On the other hand, neutrons have been proposed to form[56-61] by fusion of an electron with a proton or deuteron, which requires about 0.76 MeV to be present at the time and place of the reaction. Because this explanation of LENR has gotten wide attention, it needs to be fully understood. The idea is flawed because it assumes enough energy to form a neutron can be concentrated in a chemical environment at one location. Energy is a real and basic quantity that is not observed to accumulate spontaneously beyond well-understood limits.1 If such large energy were to concentrate in an electron or the target nucleus, it would have to be harvested from an environment in which the average energy is much less than 0.1 eV. Consequently, packets of energy would have to spontaneously seek out and add to individual electrons in which the accumulating energy must be stored. How is this storage accomplished? The electron is a fundamental particle that cannot store energy. If it could, its rest mass would not be constant..." Whether W-L theory is correct or not, I believe Storms is wrong here. The coupling of one electron via electric or magnetic fields to others in a coherent electron beam (i.e., its photon "dressing") can enormously increase its effective mass and its impact energy in collisions. If a single electron in a tightly coupled coherent beam of 10,000,000 electrons impacts another particle, I believe that electron will indeed concentrate some energy from the other 9,999,999 electrons. This coupling is evident in the "Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin Lagrangian. (e.g., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Lagrangian) For a general discussion on how the collective magnetic field stores energy that individual electrons can tap, see: "Thoughts on the magnetic vector potential" - Mark D. Semon, et al American Journal of Physics, vol.64(11), Nov.1996 pp.1361-9 http://www.uccs.edu/~jmarsh2/links/AJP-64-11-1361.pdf Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. A mechanical analog - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m hill - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges cannot be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. I do like Storms's approach. I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can focus incident fields many thousands of times. -- Lou Pagnucco Jaro Jaro wrote: > Hey Gang, I tried posting Ed Storm's new paper as an attachment to this > forum as per Ed's request but it did not post properly. > > Hopefully, Jed has it posted on his site already. Jed, is it up on your > site? > > What do you guys think of Ed Storm's new model of LENR. Ed seems to have > pinned downt the exact conditions for the creation of a Nuclear Active > Environment (NAE). I am not smart enough to fully undrestand his new > model or its ramifications. I'm hoping the smart folks here could break > it down and discuss it. > > > Jojo > > >
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
Will upload Monday. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
In the cold fusion system commonly referred to as the Pirelli high school reactor, very detailed information is available. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/english-translation-of-build-instructions-for-pirelli-athanor-cell/ This system with a COP of 4 can provide an excellent test bed to verify the crack theory. What I believe will be seen is that the crack theory shows one unique manifestation of a more general causation principle. This more general causation principle I believe is topological material mediated charge accumulation. This more general theory covers cracks but can operate beyond cracks to include other types of systems; one being the Pirelli high school reactor. In the Pirelli system, there is no special preparation of the tungsten powder whose grain size varies between 100 microns and 50 nanometers, in variable proportions with a total weight of g. 1 to 2. The high school reaction will not function unless potassium carbonate is included in the mud mix. It is this low work function based potassium carbonate catalyst that provides the topological material acting to accumulate charge as a super nano capacitor which overcomes the coulomb barrier in the tungsten powder when the nanowires come into contact with any given grain of tungsten. The potassium carbonate will produce long thin nano whiskers which serve the same function of charge accumulation as cracks do in the Ed Storms model. To provide some background on this, I refer to this recent article that shows the ability of nanowires to store large amounts of charge as a result of quantum mechanical effects. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-nanocable-big-boon-energy-storage.html 'Nanocable' could be big boon for energy storage This serendipitous discovery reports that the capacitance of the Nano cable is at least 10 times greater than what would be predicted with classical electrostatics. "We didn't expect to create this when we started," said study co-author Jun Lou, associate professor of mechanical engineering and materials science at Rice. "At the outset, we were just curious to see what would happen electrically and mechanically if we took small copper wires known as interconnects and covered them with a thin layer of carbon." The size of these Nano cables is very large compared to the estimated size of the potassium/carbon Nano fibers produced in the high school system. I say this to point out that small nano sized material is more quantum mechanically active than larger dimensioned materials. These Nano cables are 10 times fatter than the potassium whiskers generated in the high school system. I say look at the tungsten grains used in the high school system. Look for cracks or carbon covered potassium nanowires. An electron microscope will tell the tail. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Hey Gang, I tried posting Ed Storm's new paper as an attachment to this > forum as per Ed's request but it did not post properly. > > Hopefully, Jed has it posted on his site already. Jed, is it up on your > site? > > What do you guys think of Ed Storm's new model of LENR. Ed seems to have > pinned downt the exact conditions for the creation of a Nuclear Active > Environment (NAE). I am not smart enough to fully undrestand his new > model or its ramifications. I'm hoping the smart folks here could break it > down and discuss it. > > > Jojo > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > Hey Gang, I tried posting Ed Storm's new paper as an attachment to this > forum as per Ed's request but it did not post properly. You should be able to see it here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=1p0RrnAnuN_D1g9qbKN8Q843eqleYGDcOeNWqAAAikIQrqsuG5J9ygW4R_-J9 http://goo.gl/41uHe T
