Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

First of all, ***How long did it take for you to generate a 4 point list rather than answer a simple 40k foot inductive question? your question was not about my theory. ***It sure as hell was. It points to one theory being more consistent with the evidence than the other. The BEC theory possi

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

** ** *Ed Storms said: I do not now believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.* I agree with this. But the conditions that produce LENR make the formation of BEC probable. This BEC formation is not a necessary and sufficient condition to the development of LENR, be if a BEC does form, it may

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

First of all, your question was not about my theory. It was about how I would expected a BEC would behave, which has no relationship to my theory Second, I explained to you why I did not answer your question and you replied with demanding arrogance. In a discussion group, interaction wit

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry ***I don't care about hurt feelings. You can hurt my feelings every day next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple question. You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to fully > answer. > ***I'm not asking for it to be ful

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something about how radiation and LENR behave. ***Perhaps you should take it up with the owners of this list. I got an A

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something about > how radiation and LENR behave. > ***Perhaps you should take it up with the owners of this list. I got an A in calculus-based Nuclear Physics when I was in college,

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something about how radiation and LENR behave. Your suggestion is not consistent with this knowledge. I know it is fun to speculate and I don't want to insult your interest, but describing the reasons why this suggestion is not corr

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

How about applying Occham's Razor? If these fusion events were happening on the surface at 10^11 times/sec, then there would likely -- likely, as in applying INDUCTIVE reasoning-- be far more radiation emitted because it would not be absorbed by the lattice. It seems that the absorption by the la

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

To make 1 watt of power using d+d=He, the fusion reaction has to happen at 10^11 times a second, which would produce radiation at this flux if it resulted from the process. The detected energetic radiation is frequently near 1 event/sec. This low level flux can also be explained by hot fusi

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Yes Eric, occasionally a very few neutrons and energetic particles are > detected. These are at least 10 orders of magnitude below the main effect, > hence are not part of the LENR process. > ***How do you know they are not part of the LENR p

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

Yes Eric, occasionally a very few neutrons and energetic particles are detected. These are at least 10 orders of magnitude below the main effect, hence are not part of the LENR process. Yes, X-rays are seen which are much less in number than needed to account for the heat. These are detail

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:11, Edmund Storms wrote: >> 1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D. The CR-39 experiments suggest that there are ~1 MeV protons and ~4 MeV alphas exiting some Pd/D configurations. Some of the work done at BARC and by Karabut and Karabut sugge

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

It is clear these are not laws, but phenomenological regularities observed. A bit like observing that animal are smaller on islands. If I understand well, your opinion is that even seen as observation of regularities, it is not so true... Moreover all is mixed with theoretical noise. thanks for t

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

Let me add a few more comments. Kozima believes that all materials contain extra neurons that are outside of the nucleus and are stabilized against their normal radioactive decay (16 min 1/2 life) by something in the lattice. He believes that these trapped neutrons are released occasionall

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

These "Laws" do not make sense. I have no idea what they mean. A law must be clearly stated and consistent with what is known. It must also clearly limit what is possible. The "laws" stated by Kozima are so general they have no special application. This kind of sloppy thinking and descrip

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

Dear Mr Storms, Does Kozima laws inspire you something? (I've naively commented http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?244-Theory-Kozima-3-Laws-in-the-CF-Phenomenon&highlight=kozima) kozima article (extended version

[Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic paths. People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any idea that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can look for the overall patterns that must be