Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this special condition is created (I call the NAE) no treatment will cause LENR. This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry. Occasionally, this special condition is created in a material by chance, which produces the unreliable reproducibility. In contrast, Rossi has found a way to make this condition every time. Once an active material is created, it can be caused to make LENR many different ways, including simply by heating it in hydrogen gas (any isotope). Once the process starts, the rate can be increased using lasers, magnetic fields, increased temperature, and probably other ways not yet considered. Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way to make it active, success will be based on chance. If people want to advance the field, they need to focus on how a material can be made active. What about the material has to change and what unique condition has to be created? Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Caveat: There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC) will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result, based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. Once a particular brand, or type of CC has been identified as active, then it would be significant if a half dozen experimenters - or possibly many more- were able to verify the ongoing thermal anomaly in different parts of the US and the World - but all using unpowered experiments in the Arata-to-Cravens tradition. Essentially this kind of democratic experimental base - and hopefully a positive end-result is was what A. Lomax was trying to do with his LENR kits. I'm not sure how that went over, but it was probably doomed by complexity and cost. However, this type of CC demonstration would be more dramatic and cheaper, since it gets away from deuterium and promises significant output. The CC are mass-produced devices, coming from low wage suppliers, and there is certainly no more efficient way to get large amount of catalytic transition metals onto a ceramic support. In short, this could be a great opportunity for grass-root science to be able to stuff a bit of experimental truth about LENR down the collective throats of ivory tower skeptics... _ The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen. It could show a steady temperature gain over ambient of more than Cravens' ongoing gain of 5 degrees - essentially for years. That kind of experiment would cost a few hundred, out-of-pocket dollars for any garage lab with hydrogen, a datalogging PC, thermocouples and about a square meter of space to spare. To actually burn the hydrogen is counter-productive for proving gain. From: James Bowery How expensive is it to replicate? http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be confirmed). If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way to make it active, success will be based on chance. I agree. But if someone does figure out how to do it with catalytic converter technology that will be the Cat's Pajamas. Because the people who make those cat converters know how to reproduce their work with precision. And because those things stand up to high heat and rugged conditions for years. It is the ideal platform for gas loaded cold fusion. I agree, the present technology for making catalysts would apply and could be used to make large amouns of active material. The challenge is to tell them what to do to the catalyst to make it active. This treatment can be very subtile. For example, the Case catalyst was made from a barrel of coconut charcoal. Once this source of charcoal was lost, new catalyst no longer worked. No one knows why. We might be able to persuade Cravens to cooperate in this project. Based on what Cravens has said, he actually has no idea why his material works and could not tell a person how to make active material. If he can tell me how to do this, I can easily make and test such material. Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. This problem would be easy to solve once access to the right tools is possible. That access requires money combined with knowledge. That combination has not been achieved. Ed Storms - Jed
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Once again Jones, you make the discussion personal by arrogant descriptions of what you think I believe. My description does not involve a theory, at least not at this stage. It is a simple description of what has been observed by hundreds of experiments. You are free to accept this experience or not, that is your choice. Nevertheless, please understand what you are doing. I'm not and never have disparaged any effort. However, a great deal of experience has shown what works and what does not. Why ignore this experience? Why keep trying things that are known not to work? Why keep reinventing the wheel just because you don't like my theory. You are a smart man and I'm at a loss why you cannot understand such simple concepts and respond to my comments accurately. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Sorry, but once again, you are only half-right. It is fairly clear to anyone who is paying close attention that you fear and will lobby against positive results from any kind of democratic experimental effort - since it will further marginalize your own theory if successful. Ed's theory is not incorrect... let me be clear on that. But he has fallen in love with an incomplete theory, which was one of Fred Sparber's fundamental warnings: never fall in love with your own theory to the exclusion of all others. Moreover, Ed's theory applies to only one of many gainful hydrogen reactions in LENR. That is what he does not want to be revealed. Experimenters will be able to see gain in LENR with or without Ed's theory. It may not even be among the top tier theories for gain, but it is relevant to some extent, and should not be ignored. It is as simple as that. I would hate to see any kind of meaningful open-sourced effort disparaged before it gets off the ground... assuming of course - that there is a CC which works well with hydrogen in an unpowered mode... the hidden motivation for negativity is rather transparent. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this special condition is created (I call the NAE) no treatment will cause LENR. This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Let me say this again as simply and as unambiguously as possible. LENR has been studied for 24 years. Hundreds of papers describing the behavior and the required conditions have been published. This data set shows what is required and what does not work. My comments are not a theory. I'm simply describing what has been discovered. Based on reading this experience, I can say with absolute certainty that LENR requires a special condition to form in a material before it can be initiated. What that special condition is can be called a theory but that a special condition is required is not a theory. No study will be successful or useful unless that special condition forms. That condition forms by chance on some occasions. Anyone attempting to study LENR needs to discover how to make this change occur. If the field is to advance, people need to focus on this problem. Simply testing a variety of materials is useful but it is a poor way to find what works. I'm suggesting that people actually be guided by what has been done, not try any crazy idea that might be suggested. Yes, I know you do not believe the NAE exists, Jones. You believe the treatment is the important variable, not the material itself. That is fair, but please keep the discussion focused on this difference of opinion and not wonder into what else you think I believe or not. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Once again Jones, you make the discussion personal by arrogant descriptions of what you think I believe. From my perspective, arrogance was not intended- and if seen, then it must have been a result of mirroring of the initial comment, which as you may recall began with an what can be called a rather arrogant belittlement of a proposed experiment that does not fit into someone's own pet theory. My description does not involve a theory, at least not at this stage. LOL. Sure fooled me. Jones
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Terry, you need to now that Arata explored many sources of palladium black before be found one that worked. He never revealed his source or what made the particular batch active. Dissociation, loading and liquids are not the essential requirements. An essential requirement exists in a material, but the nature of that critical condition is being debated. Ed Srorms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Caveat: There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC) will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result, based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they thought it was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC. They kindly explained to the naive newcomer that it required dissociation and loading and liquids. Patted me on the head politely and sent me along. Amusing, innit?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
So am I. A person gets what they pay for. It proves nothing if a person claims to see heat using a method that no one will accept as showing excess energy no matter how cheap the method. That has been a major problem in getting LENR accepted in the first place. If heating power is sought, it MUST be measured with accuracy and confidence no matter the cost. On the other hand, radiation is easy to measure with confidence and very cheeply. However, this requires a change in attitude, which is not easy. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:56 PM, James Bowery wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE
Bob, temperature is not the source of cracks or have any role in their function. Temperature changes the rate at which hydrogen is delivered to the crack. It is important to understand the role of each variable. You can find an explanation at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful crack population. Rossi seems to use temperature as a control. Bob From: Edmund Storms Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods hav e not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Stormss On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky sometimes. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote: I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Perter, what you say is not true based on my understanding. Cracks can be made stable. However, LENR does have a lifetime problem that will limit the upper temperature and/or the time before the active material has to replaced. Yes, I know that some people including yourself think PdD and NiH are different. I have no proof at this time, but I prefer to believe that Nature does not have more than one mechanism to initiate nuclear reactions in a material. I also can identify the requirements a mechanism must met in order not to violate accepted natural law and present observations. So far, I see no reason for PdD and NiH to be different. I'm waiting for someone to look for deuterium and tritium production in the NiH system and report the result in a way that can be understood and evaulated. So far, we only have personal comments. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are probably quite different species. Peter On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky sometimes. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote: I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure
Re: [Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE
Axil, how do you know how I produce the NAE. I do not know this and neither of us knows how Rossi does this. Your guesses are not useful. I can comprehend the process you describe. I just do not believe it. Do you see the difference? Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Axil Axil wrote: There is more than one way to skin a cat. LENR active cracks can be produced in more than one way. The way Rossi produces NAE is different than the way Ed Storms produces NAE, and Rossi is far more productive and robust at it. Rossi produces NAE with his “mouse” which is a nano-particle generator. Nano-particles are attracted to each other and form fractal arrogates. These arrogates are like dust bunnies that you find under the bed. They enclose countless nano-cavities that serve as NAE. Here is pictures of such a fractal abrogate: http://ej.iop.org/images/1367-2630/11/6/063030/Full/nj33fig1.jpg Note the presence of numerous nano-cavities that develops naturally through electrostatic processes. When these dust bunnies drift onto the 5 micron micro particles, the micro particles use dipole vibration to feed power into these NAE inside the dust bunnies. I deeply regret that Ed Storms cannot comprehend this simple process. It would be better for LENR if he did. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bob, temperature is not the source of cracks or have any role in their function. Temperature changes the rate at which hydrogen is delivered to the crack. It is important to understand the role of each variable. You can find an explanation at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful crack population. Rossi seems to use temperature as a control. Bob From: Edmund Storms Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods hav e not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Stormss On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Alain, you can find the description of the Hydroton at http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-presentation-videos-monday-july-22/ http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: beyond cracks , maybe is there some topological defect, longitudinal defects, crystallographic-phase change planes... is there document about hydroton. naively among possibilities I imagine a circular hydroton ring and thing about a superconductor.. to explain magnetic fields. maybe stupid... 2014-03-22 22:12 GMT+01:00 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Ed, The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are probably quite different species. Peter On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky sometimes. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote: I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence: “Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk materials.” This is why some here take issue with Ed’s relying only on “… the laws from the past 100 years of chemistry/physics”. Those laws were developed with bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to what’s happening in LENR, and my $ is on the novel propertieswhich the referenced paper is studying. This may also be the reason why the ‘gray-hairs’, or grairs to borrow a theme from Star Trek, have not been able to figure this out; they can’t think out of the bulk-matter-box. So keep up the informed and researched speculations, cuz that’s what we Vorts are good at! J -Mark Iverson From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles: http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles. Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there return various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural result of this method of metal nanoparticle synthesis: Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: James Bowery Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700 It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research. Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous metal - if it behaves like glass. I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium electrodes was one of the keys. Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material. I suppose that if the material is not too ductile, just the formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it. SO experimenting with the ball mill might be one possibility.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed stated: Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.- I would note Ed, that there are well documented low energy nuclear reactions that are called fusion reactions where the coulomb barrier is overcome. One is the fusion of two deuterons in a molecule that is bound together with a muon and an electron. The theory is that the coulomb repulsive field between the two deutrons--the barrier--is reduced by the presence of the attractive negatively charged muon and an electron to the extent that the wave function of each deuteron overlaps the other and another quantum system force (not coulombic) draws the two protons into a new particle, helium, with a relase of energy associated with the redcued total mass of the new particle with respect to the mass of the two initial deuterons. I am suprised that you do not seem to recognize the reality of this reaction. There appears to be no kinetic energy needed to cause this reaction to take place or get over this barrier (your words) between the two deuterons. As long as the characteristics of the particles as presented by their wave function is such that these wave functions can blend together to form a new wave function with lower potential energy (mass) they shall blend together consistent with theromodynamic principles associated with reactions that result in an increase of entropy and spin conservation. This increase in entropy is a long-held principle of chemical reactions as well. Spin conservation principle is only about 75 years old. The existence of electrons pairs in in chemical reactions is important relative to ionization potentials. Here it is believed the electrons pair up with opposite spins with an overlap of their respective force fields as described by their wave functions to form a new quasi particle with its distinctive characteristics as described by its wave function. Cooper paring is possible for any Fermi particles including protrons. These are consider to be quasi particles with spins pointing in opposite directions. Bose Einstein Condensates of Bose particles (integral or 0 spin particles) result from nuclear reactions without high energies required to over come the coulomb barriers between such particles. Bob From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to an extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier. This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics, and quantum mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration to occur because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion exclusion principle. Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in current scientific development. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur
[Vo]:unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
The behavior of two balls can not be applied to LENR. Imagining how photons might interact ignores the fact that the protons are not isolated in space when in a chemical lattice. When LENR occurs in a lattice, all the protons, deuterons and electrons are innerconnected. They all are restrained in their motion by forces that hold the lattice together. People who have the mind of the physicist seem to ignore what actually happens in a chemical structure. This structure is not plasma as is experienced in hot fusion. The atoms in such a structure are not free to move except under well known restraint. The amount of energy available is limited by the energy holding the structure together, which is no more than a few eV. Pretending otherwise has made the present theories worthless. If you are a physicist and want to explain LENR, please first learn some chemistry. Ed Storms On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Harry and Jones-- I have not said anything about these balls--Jones has said it all. They demonstrate the instantaneous change of kinetic energy, angular momentum and linear momentum into spin--rotational energy alone. However, if the potential energy of the welded bond or the magnetic field goes away, the spin energy would transform back into kinetic energy of the two balls. They would fly apart with the same kinetic energy (or nearly as much less friction loss) that they had when they first met. (Kind of like getting married and then divorced.) LENR is nice since the system starts out with high spin energy and only increases its potential energy (remaining married) with no destructive kinetic energy to speak of--only well managed heat. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:47 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor From: H Veeder …two steel ball bearings welded together … are a metaphorical cooper-pair, so to speak... raising another weird question: is there something about spherical-pairing alone, which is special - at any level? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvq8laPb498 Nice…. two magnetic balls roll together and their linear motion is converted into rotational motion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIfTKBVI6ZQ Thank, Harry - this video is another good visual example of a larger phenomenon involving pairing - since we can better visualize how linear motion is converted to rotational naturally. This is somewhat along the lines of how Bob Cook wants to fashion the LENR reaction, with the conversion of kinetic energy of reactants being spin-coupled, in the end. However, IMO - this process does not require actual fusion to be anomalously energetic. And coupling would never hide gamma rays, if there was a nuclear reaction, so essentially coupling cannot be related to permanent fusion, since the energies are too high. However, moderate excess energy – well above chemical but less than nuclear, requires only the same basic force which keeps electrons from interacting with protons to begin with. That force is the zero point field. Puthoff and associates have elegantly framed the details of this kind of energy transfer, but until recently, there was doubt that ZPE could be easily converted to energy at a macro scale. The armchair theorist can imagine that the two balls are protons at a distance, and when they are accelerated together, say during the collapse of molecule of H2 due to electron degeneracy, Pauli exclusion keeps the two from fusing, and yet their linear motion is converted to spin. Extraordinary spin such as is the visual effect of the videos. In fact, just prior to this happening with protons, the two electrons of H2 could have joined into a temporary cooper pair of electrons, which function to accelerate the electrons towards each other. Thus one cooper-pair starts the LENR reaction and another finishes it, but no permanent fusion takes place. The transient electron pairing only needs to happen for a femtosecond to set the stage for this form of LENR). This model serves to explain, to an large extent, why Ni-H LENR can be so robust with no permanent nuclear reaction at all – since all of the resultant high spin is coupled back to magnons – which are easier to couple within a ferromagnetic lattice than within an exciton. When the exciton is ferromagnetic itself, the reaction is boosted and ZPE is converted to thermal energy. Jones One further point about “pairing of spheres” being special or natural or favored at many levels of geometry. This goes beyond cooper pairs - to cosmology. In our solar system, out sun is a single star, and consequently humans are misled into thinking that most stars are singlets. In fact that is not true - and only about 15% of stars in our galaxy are singlets. 85% of stars are found as
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
On Mar 21, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms When LENR occurs in a lattice, all the protons, deuterons and electrons are innerconnected. They all are restrained in their motion by forces that hold the lattice together. What you say is true, Ed - but essentially irrelevant. You did not read the premise – at least not carefully - which clearly states that we are talking about nano-porosity and NOT about lattice chemistry such as is seen in Pd-D. Why are you always lost in the old world of Pd-D? Jones, ALL chemical structures are similar in this behavior to PdD. I use PdD as an example only because it is the most investigated and the most cited. A Casimir pore inside Raney nickel for instance could have a diameter of 8 nm. Plenty of room. In which case we would NOT be talking about chemistry but about plasma physics. Should the contents of that pore be H3+ then chemistry is modestly helpful but insufficient to explain the operative dynamics. OK, now you are describing a different feature, which I agree can accommodate behavior that is not possible in the lattice itself. In fact, I go this path when I place the Hydroton in a crack. Now the discussion has to address whether the Casimir effect is real or not. I do not believe it is real, as I said before. I believe a structure like the Hydroton must be created for the observed behavior to take place in PdD or in NiH, but in both cases in a nano-crack. We agree that a nano-crack or nano-cavity is required. We differ in what happens in this structure. Thus you entire argument favoring electrochemistry falls apart from the starting premise. I'm not discussing electrochemistry. No one mentioned electrochemistry. Electrochemistry is only one of the 7 methods that have been used to force hydrogen isotopes into a structure where the NAE can be created. It has no other function. Ø If you are a physicist and want to explain LENR, please first learn some chemistry. If you are a chemist and want to understand the Ni-H reaction as it happens in nanocavities, please first learn to appreciate the physics of nanocavities, the Casimir force, quantum opto-mechanics, QCD and the strong force, the solar diproton reaction, SPP and Pauli exclusion. There is no room for fusion of protons to deuterium in this kind of physics. Yes, that is your claim. That is where we differ. I propose that the LENR occurs outside the lattice, as you do, but by a different process. It would help if you focused on where we actually differ rather than on imagined irrelevant differences. The dark ages of Pd-D are ancient history in 2014, and we are now moving into a new level of understanding demanding a multi-disciplinary approach based on quantum physics. It is one in which electrochemistry is helpful - but far from sufficient to explain the dynamics of gain in Ni-H. Here again, we differe. I believe Nature has only one mechanism that applies to PdD, PdH, NiH and any other environment where the mechanism can be made to operate. Only one universal NAE is causing what is observed using PdD or NiH. You apparently believe that several mechanisms are operating. Is that true? If so, what are these mechanisms? Ed Storms Jones
Re: [Vo]:OT what's up with conspiracy theories these days?
I'm really disappointed in this group, given their high intelligence and fantastic imagination, for not suggesting the obvious explanation. The airplane was captured by a ET mothership. This was done with the help of the pilots because they are actually hybrids. The goal is to show the population of the world the ability of the ET and to educate the passengers about the need to change world policy. Once the passengers have been give a guided tour of the mother ship with several good meals thrown in, they will be returned to tell their story. Too bad Bond would have no one to shoot. Perhaps this is why this explanation will not be used as a movie plot and is not getting attention. This can not be any more far fetched than the present explanations and it has a happy ending, at least for the passengers. For the world leaders, not so much. Ed Storms On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Jones Beene wrote: One more story of interest – relates to hidden motives http://www.eutimes.net/2014/03/russia-puzzled-over-malaysia-airlines-capture-by-us-navy/ [snip] The latest twist on this story is that a search of the Pilot’s home found a flight simulator, and the flight data that had been erased from the simulator indicated that the pilot had been training to land on Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean. Makes a good plot for the next Bond movie if nothing else…
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:OT what's up with conspiracy theories these days?
On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Yes but still displaced by solar orbit wrt the galaxy :_) Yes, your comment applies to the physical location, not to the temporal location. As we know, time and space are not located in the same place. ;-) Ed Storms From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 1:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:OT what's up with conspiracy theories these days? On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: They should be scanning our orbital trail in case it encountered a temporal rift and rematerialized in the same spatial coordinates displaced by hours from the rest of the planet. Now you are one to something, Roarty. Consequently, the plane will reappear a year from now when we return to the previous temporal location. Ed Storms From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:OT what's up with conspiracy theories these days? From: Edmund Storms I'm really disappointed in this group, given their high intelligence and fantastic imagination, for not suggesting the obvious explanation. The airplane was captured by a ET mothership. This was done with the help of the pilots because they are actually hybrids. You could be right on this one Ed. At least you may have now just realized that Terry and I always try to present these kind of tall tales as tongue-in-cheek humor… though not everyone realizes that till later. Sometimes the only giveaway is the subject heading… it is fun to see that the conspiracy theorists have already picked up on it. BTW – the next episode – possibly happening this afternoon, if they follow our original script - will be the one where most of the bodies and a lot of luggage from Flight 370 will turn up in the Indian Ocean, about as far away from Diego Garcia as possible – so as not to raise eyebrows even further… … or else ET will place all the evidence on an iceberg near Antarctica…
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:OT what's up with conspiracy theories these days?
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: They should be scanning our orbital trail in case it encountered a temporal rift and rematerialized in the same spatial coordinates displaced by hours from the rest of the planet. Now you are one to something, Roarty. Consequently, the plane will reappear a year from now when we return to the previous temporal location. Ed Storms From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:OT what's up with conspiracy theories these days? From: Edmund Storms I'm really disappointed in this group, given their high intelligence and fantastic imagination, for not suggesting the obvious explanation. The airplane was captured by a ET mothership. This was done with the help of the pilots because they are actually hybrids. You could be right on this one Ed. At least you may have now just realized that Terry and I always try to present these kind of tall tales as tongue-in-cheek humor… though not everyone realizes that till later. Sometimes the only giveaway is the subject heading… it is fun to see that the conspiracy theorists have already picked up on it. BTW – the next episode – possibly happening this afternoon, if they follow our original script - will be the one where most of the bodies and a lot of luggage from Flight 370 will turn up in the Indian Ocean, about as far away from Diego Garcia as possible – so as not to raise eyebrows even further… … or else ET will place all the evidence on an iceberg near Antarctica…
Re: [Vo]:OT what's up with conspiracy theories these days?
Ockham is about to slit his throat. Ed Storms On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:21 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Did the missing jetliner fly into an area controlled by the Taliban? Apparently there was enough fuel ... and, well ... no better explanation has surfaced. A water spout sucked it into a Keplerian orbital WIMP sinkhole. Haven't you guys ever heard of Ockham's Razor?
Re: [Vo]:HHO welding is LENR
Confusion seems to exist between energy and temperature. A very high temperature can be produced using very little energy if the energy is highly concentrated. This is done regularly using lasers and electric arcs. In the case of HHO, the chemical energy released when H2O forms is applied directly to the material where it is released by catalytic action. The skin feels no heat because the reaction is not catalyzed by the skin. This gas would make a poor fuel in an engine because the reaction produces a reduction in volume of gas, with only a temporary increases produced by heating the gas. In contrast, gasoline produces a large increase on gas volume, which is used to move the piston. However, use of such a gas might improve the efficiency of gasoline combustion. More convenient ways exist to do this, which have been applied over the years, thereby making the gasoline engine increasingly efficient. However, I have seen no evidence that LENR can be initiated this way. Even if it could, the heat energy would not be suitable to add much extra push to the piston before the heat was dissipated. The process needs a permanent increase in gas volume, not just a temporary increase cause by increased temperature. Ed Storms On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: Axil, I admit total ignorance of the HHO theory. I have heard about people saying they can reduce gas consumption in autos. It has never taken any commercial format. I have a few questions though: 1. If HHO produce this high temperature, then it sounds to me to be logical that it saves gas in an Otto motor. The gasoline will explode in an instantaneously increased pressure due to HHO increases the temperature and therefore the pressure (compression). Is that how it works? 2. Is it not true that if we can produce any 'heat motor' with higher temperature we will increase COP? At 6,000 C temperature and 20C on the exhaust a heat motor should be competitive with an electrical motor when it comes to COP. 3. If 1 and 2 is correct then a LENR process at COP 2 would be feasible as it at least will have excess energy after feeding its own input. Is that correct? I am OK with a lesson in basics:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Why is a HHO flame able to vaporize tungsten and yet will not burn the skin of your hand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax4sW3bo_dM The HHO gas stream contains solid crystals of water. These crystals act like nano lenses that concentrate infrared light in the boundary layer between a shiny metal surface and a dielectric gas like hydrogen or oxygen. The science that studies this effect is called nanoplasmonics. The heat energy is confined to the metal surface and locked in(AKA dark mode) and concentrated their like in a EMF black hole. The metal surface is said to have a negative coefficient of reflectivity. This keeps the heat from leaving the metal surface. In this way the heat energy builds up to huge temperatures to the point where it will vaporize tungsten. The skin on your hand has a positive index of reflectivity; it is not shiny. The heat from hydrogen combustion is not confined to the surface of your skin and can escape to the surrounding air. So you will not be readily burned by the HHO flame. This is a basic LENR effect (aka evanescent wave - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave) of energy concentration and focusing. This indicates that the upper temperature limit of the LENR effect is beyond the temperature required to vaporize tungsten (5930 °C, 10706 °F) On the other hand, the combustion temperature of hydrogen is only 2,660 °C with oxygen. Do I need to spell this out any further? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ceOL83PM24 On the downside, spark ignition of HHO does not use the LENR effect of the evanescent wave. So burning hydrogen in oxygen is only combustion and not LENR.
Re: [Vo]:HHO welding is LENR
That is right, Dave. Tungsten oxide is volatile and will vaporize at much lower temperatures than pure tungsten, which makes tungsten look as if it is valorizing. In addition, the quoted max. temperature for H2-O2 combustion is for the temperature of the flame. This is not the maximum possible temperature. If the energy is released on the surface of the W, the temperature could get much higher. Ed Storms On Mar 18, 2014, at 12:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Is it possible that some of the tungsten is burning instead of melting? A cutting torch actually burns the steel by adding excess oxygen to the region. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 11:40 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:HHO welding is LENR In HHO welding, there is no electric current employed. HHO welding is just the burning of hydrogen in oxygen. But how does a hydrogen combustion process that produces only 2,660 °C in heat vaporize tungsten at (5930 °C, 10706 °F). This does not add up unless there is LENR involved. On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, Langmuir was aware of this anomaly and advised not to pursue it when he developed atomic welding with tungsten electrodes.. some will insist it is the energy of recombination but if so then welding would not be a constant flow and one would have to continually stop, build up a reservoir of atomic hydrogen [which opposes retaining that state] and then weld a little bit to exhaust the recombination energy in a very short burst to exploit the stored energy enough to melt tungsten. Since atomic welding is a smooth process and the electrical energy employed by the arc is not to my knowledge significant enough to account for the melting capability then yes.. your point is well taken. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:11 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:HHO welding is LENR Why is a HHO flame able to vaporize tungsten and yet will not burn the skin of your hand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax4sW3bo_dM The HHO gas stream contains solid crystals of water. These crystals act like nano lenses that concentrate infrared light in the boundary layer between a shiny metal surface and a dielectric gas like hydrogen or oxygen. The science that studies this effect is called nanoplasmonics. The heat energy is confined to the metal surface and locked in(AKA dark mode) and concentrated their like in a EMF black hole. The metal surface is said to have a negative coefficient of reflectivity. This keeps the heat from leaving the metal surface. In this way the heat energy builds up to huge temperatures to the point where it will vaporize tungsten. The skin on your hand has a positive index of reflectivity; it is not shiny. The heat from hydrogen combustion is not confined to the surface of your skin and can escape to the surrounding air. So you will not be readily burned by the HHO flame. This is a basic LENR effect (aka evanescent wave - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave) of energy concentration and focusing. This indicates that the upper temperature limit of the LENR effect is beyond the temperature required to vaporize tungsten (5930 °C, 10706 °F) On the other hand, the combustion temperature of hydrogen is only 2,660 °C with oxygen. Do I need to spell this out any further? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ceOL83PM24 On the downside, spark ignition of HHO does not use the LENR effect of the evanescent wave. So burning hydrogen in oxygen is only combustion and not LENR.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment plays a role. These are examples of mental games physics encourages that may or may not have any relationship to reality. Only years of effort supported by significant funding would be required to determine if these ideas have any value to physics or to LENR. Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This means we need to understand the NAE. The details that these speculations address will be explored later by future graduate students. The discussions on Vortex would also be more useful if they focused on the NAE and how it can be created in real materials. Ed Storms On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Kevin, If experiments in any field can demonstrate a high temperature version of a Luttinger Condensate, then your insight is valid and can push forward LENR technology. That is the main issue with anything Bosonic – can it be applied at high temperature. All of the advances in LENR have been incremental and delayed. That Journal issue you mention, from April 2008 - is almost 6 years old and is crammed with relevant info for LENR, but little has been disseminated into actual experiments after all the years. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 From: Kevin O'Malley Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: ***Also perhaps here. New Journal of Physics Volume 10 April 2008 R Citro et al 2008 New J. Phys. 10 045011
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
A good path James, but with a few potholes. On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: The critical path seems to me to be: 1) Economically elicit statistically significant results. Rossi has done this but he has not reveal how. 2) Formalize that economical method in an experimental protocol. Many ideas have been suggested but only Rossi has demonstrated a device. 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to start over. 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. What next? 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. What good are the results from a flawed theory? We need more competent theoreticians to take an interest and a way to evaluate proposed concepts. Right now we have a collection of established theories that exists as islands with no relationship to each other nor to what is generally known about LENR. Ed Storms 6) Improve the economy with which statistically significant results may be attained. 7) Repeat from step 2. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: ...Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This means we need to understand the NAE. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Kevin O'Malley And also perhaps here: Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it). That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on Vortex-L until I pointed it out. Jones, please tell me where Sinha proposed to use a laser to remove energy from a system. I have only one paper in my collection by this author that describes using a laser to improve coupling between the Lochon and the lattice to increase the fusion rate. Laser stimulation of low-energy nuclear reactions in deuterated palladium, Current Sci., 91 (7) 907-912 (2006) Ed Storms T
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Jones, I know that you believe Pd-D and Ni-H involve two entirely different and unrelated phenomenon. Consequently, a discussion is impossible because we are discussing two entirely different concepts. You are so sure your concept is correct, you feel free to be arrogant about your belief. On the other hand, the concept you reject has growing support. Nevertheless, regardless of which concept is correct, progress requires insight about how to make the effect work on demand. Can you do this using your concept? Do you know how Rossi has succeeded in making heat using Ni-H2? Can you tell me how to do this so that I can replicate his success? Ed Storms On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment plays a role. Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you not consider SPP to be a chemical environment ? It is not nuclear. Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply lucky or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who want to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better ways. These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP and triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion as being essentially lost-in-time. It is valid but it is dead-end for practicality if Ni-H is real. Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and instead marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If not, it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are not relevant to Ni-H. At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what makes his work completely different from your old school experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast. That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not interfere. Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:37 PM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to start over. Assuming that by present accepted theories you refer to the hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease: If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then its no good. If your theory does have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results. Enumerate said modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing theories. If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up. I could not say it better! Ed Storms 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. What next? 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. What good are the results from a flawed theory? I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail answers to these last two questions.
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
What is gained by lying and then using a description that has no relationship to reality? LENR is a nuclear process. It might or it might not have any relationship to plasmonic reactions. The people who make decisions about what to fund are not children and they are not part of the unwashed masses. Playing games with words will not work. It just makes us look dishonest and confused. Ed Storms On Mar 13, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: One of the tragic miscalculations made by spokespersons who attempt to explain ‘COLD FUSION’ is the subconscious connection that they make between current fusion/fission nuclear based technology and cold fusion. In fact there is no connection. This unfortunate connection between cold fusion and the nuclear industry was mistakenly made very early on and has become a tradition in the cold fusion community. When addressing an audience with no background in cold fusion, it might be best to decuple this technology conceptually from conventional nuclear energy. With this wisdom in mind, Defkalion has again changed the name of their reaction from Heat Energy from Nuclei Interactions To Heat Energy from Nanoplasmonics/Nanoexplosions Interactions The name of our technology should have no links to existing scientific meme to confuse the great unwashed masses being exposed to it for the first time. This inaccurate meme connection through the words we use is unnecessarily counterproductive from a propaganda and product positioning standpoint. Our collective interests might be better served if we conform to the naming conventions that DGT is using whatever it is currently is since Rossi lives in his own anti social world. Low energy Nanoplasmonic reaction LENR might be good to use also. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Thanks Kevin. My next book will be more interesting than usual because it evaluates theory. More than a few cages will be rattled. As for the skeptopaths, they are not worth the time. These people are clearly not rational. Some human minds are not designed to accept reality most of us enjoy. These people have their own reality that will not change regardless of the evidence. Their attitude toward cold fusion is only an example. I suspect you will find the rest of their reality to be equally distorted. Ed Storms On Mar 12, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Ed: I love your books. I'm dealing with PTSIFOM skeptopaths who wouldn't read a LENR book unless they knew $10 bills would fall out of each page. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Kevin, if you read my book (The science of low energy nuclear reaction), you will find the data set on which this paper was based. Ed Storms On Mar 10, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that correlate excess heat. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf Page 71 The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt Dennis Cravens 1 and Dennis Letts 2 1 Amridge University Box 1317 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA 2 12015 Ladrido Lane Austin, TX 78727 USA Abstract One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of “excess heat” is a real physical effect “beyond a reasonable doubt. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been replicated? Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion --- Jed Rothwell says: Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has been replicated hundreds of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 -- JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters • Frontiers of Physics in China -- National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion • THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. -- http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf This file is corrupted. At least for me... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Kevin, if you read my book (The science of low energy nuclear reaction), you will find the data set on which this paper was based. Ed Storms On Mar 10, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that correlate excess heat. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf Page 71 The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt Dennis Cravens 1 and Dennis Letts 2 1 Amridge University Box 1317 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA 2 12015 Ladrido Lane Austin, TX 78727 USA Abstract One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of “excess heat” is a real physical effect “beyond a reasonable doubt. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been replicated? Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion --- Jed Rothwell says: Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has been replicated hundreds of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 -- JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters • Frontiers of Physics in China -- National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion • THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. -- http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf This file is corrupted. At least for me... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of people, does not
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
This is good advice, Lennart. But let me carry your analogy further. In this case, the beautiful girl has the reputation for being a slut. So, not only must she sell her beauty but also has to show she can be trusted. How is this done when the people who spread the false rumor are still at work? In addition, most possible suitors have no ability to check the facts or even to understand how the rumor got started. The only way she gets chosen is for someone to take a chance, to ask the right questions, and to listen carefully to the answers because no one can be trusted to tell the truth. What will likely happen is that she will inherit a fortune from China and her reputation will no longer matter. Ed Storms On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: I should probably avoid comment in this tread as the discussion includes more physics science than I even come close to understand. However, I have some experience from funding new businesses. I think I can provide somewhat of another viewpoint because of that. It goes for everything in life it has to be sold. If you want to kiss a beautiful girl you have to sell your ability. Best if your good looks makes her come investigating 'the goods' so you can get to show your ability and just close the deal. This is true about any product or service. I have limited experience of university grants but I think you guys have covered that part rather well. My conclusion is that you are saying that politics will be in the way regardless of the good reasons put forward and the LENR community has no bait of political nature. (Big organization = bad dittos). Now to the controversial part. Why is it so hard to get capital from VC's crowd funding etc. etc.? First of all the good looks are not there. I think it is because anyone with the resources looking in to this arena will find more question marks and rivalry than a clear pathway to success. I understand that some players in the market behaved less than good in the past. To concentrate on their downside when they have received funding is to make any new investor confused. It is like telling the girl that her previous lover was a lousy lover and that the one who approached her yesterday was even worse. True or untrue, how do you know? How did you get that knowledge? The other ones have said the same about you so maybe she ought to visit another neighborhood? Maybe this is a bad area? I hope Ed Storms book will help sort out where we are. I personally have no investment capacity but I know investors need help to see, which possibilities are there and a pathway to reach success. Any hope to raise money will require : 1. A clear definition of the goal. (Nothing fluffy like a new era or revolutionary - precise expectations with a realistic time table.) 2. A list of possible obstacles. 3. Possible solutions to overcome the obstacles. 4. A team able to handle the obstacles. 5. An organization able to control the team and communicate with the investor. My experience is that most people will agree to three of the well known conditions and then say that the other two are not important. What was your first thought ? Honestly Two more things: First, it certainly will not be an advantage to criticize the competition rather the opposite. Second, no VC will come looking for the opportunity. Finally I know I am sticking out my head in a field where I have no capacity to debate the technology or its particular problems. They are unique at the same time as they are s common. I understand that there is a big difference if one wants to get the Noble price or successfully replace the grid, I.E.. My suggestions will probably be of little help to get the Nobel price. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Mark-- I will. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:13 PM Subject: RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, you need to watch The Matrix! -mark From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Harry So be it. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Bob, Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Kevin, you might consider a different explanation besides censorship or trolls. The internet gives anyone including the insane a chance to say anything they want. A significant fraction of the population is, in fact and by measurement, insane. These people are ignored unless they harm someone. In days past, they would make an insane comment in the bar or at the barbershop and be laughed into silence. Or if someone took pity, they would be listened to and then ignored. This is hard to do on the internet because the insane tend to support the insane. By insane, I mean people whose brains to not allow them to understand important aspects of this reality. Instead, they create a reality of their own. They believe this substitute reality with great conviction. They are sincere and apply logic and fact to support the substitute reality. The danger comes when normal people can not identify this substitute reality as being the workings of a flawed mind. This reality is not just a different variation of reality that we all debate because reality is not always clear. The insane make no effort to understand our reality. They are so sure their reality is correct, they will attack any challenge with emotional intensity. This response is a basic characteristic of the insane. A person needs to respond to an insane person in a different way than with a normal person. Most people have no way to do this; becoming confused by the insane. A discussion about the best response is too complicated to provide here. I'm only trying to suggest that these people need to be looked at through a different lens. Ed Storms On Mar 8, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Vigilante Censorship This is an excellent exchange showing such methodology in action. Note the crickets at the end of the thread. Typical of those who have nothing useful and honest to say. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2989565/posts?page=47#47
Re: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction
Jones, why do you or anyone believe the Casimir force is real? Yes, a force is measured but assuming it is caused by unbalanced ZPE is not consistent with observation or logic. First of all, all materials are assumed and found to be transparent to the ZPE. Yet when a small gap is created in a material, this gap is claimed to produce an imbalance in the ZPE such that a force is created and energy can be extracted. This assumption is based totally on mathematical theory without any observable evidence. As you correctly note, many observations can be explained several different ways, with the correct explanation sometimes overwhelmed by the popular explanation. I suggest the Casimir effect falls into that class. I suggest the measured force is no more and no less than an unexpected chemical attraction between two surfaces. Can anyone provide a rational answer to this challenge? Ed Storms On Mar 9, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Jones Beene wrote: When a large part of any argument is semantics - it usually requires only one definitive and rock-solid example to prove a contention... unless there is a valid alternative explanation. From: David Roberson In the free electron laser ... the wavelength should be approximately equal to the spacing between alternate magnets unless that distance is effectively shortened by the Lorentz contraction as seen by the electrons in motion. The shortening factor directly enters into the determination of the radiation frequency. A radio wavelength structure of magnets is employed to achieve an x-ray length emission due to Lorentz contraction. ... is there an alternative explanation - other than LC? If not, and if there is no valid alternative to Lorentz contraction then we must face the unavoidable conclusion. It is as simple as that. This could be a rare case of either/or where only one outcome is possible based on a physical phenomenon. In LENR this is why the appearance of tritium is so important for ultimate proof of the phenomenon. Tritium is rock-solid proof of one type of LENR. Unlike helium, which is rare but ubiquitous in air, tritium is completely unexpected, and moreover: unambiguous to measure. There is no good alternative explanation other than a low energy nuclear reaction. When tritium is seen, at least one type of LENR is proved. Period. When that one type is proved, other types are easier to justify based on a solid foundation. Since tritium has been seen for over twenty years in experiment, critics and skeptics have been wrong for that long, but they still continue to whine and interfere with progress. The reason that this is brought up in cross-connection to the x-ray laser is that Roarty has assembled a decent argument which implies free electron motion in nanocavities which implies Lorentz contraction and x-rays. This is based on the Casimir force and can be called DCE, or the dynamic Casimir effect. This relates not to another kind of LENR per se, but to an energy amplification mechanism which can be harnessed by LENR of any of the major types. For the record, some of the most intense radiation which has been documented by Randell Mills is in the 10 nm soft x-ray spectrum. He has an alternative explanation, but this exact spectrum is seen in the free-electron x-ray laser. Now we have a good explanation for this radiation showing up in the LENR experiments via LC - which does not require Mills' theory. Given Mills has been incapable of building a working device for public demonstration after 24 years and $100 million, and has reverted to modifying a crude seam welder to amaze his fans and devotees - LOL - and given that the free-electron x-ray laser has been in operation for some time - this is not looking promising like a promising future for Mills and BLP. I'm just glad BLP did not go with an IPO many years ago, since I would have invested back then and it would likely be belly up by now. Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Evidence of SR Length Contraction
On Mar 9, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Jones, why do you or anyone believe the Casimir force is real? Yes, a force is measured but assuming it is caused by unbalanced ZPE is not consistent with observation or logic. Ed, most of physics does not agree with you on this point. Of course, a force of some kind is real and measured at nano-geometry. Casimir predicted this and it has been shown to be real in actual experiment and in manufactured devices- which makes your basic observation premise false from the start. There is no valid alternative explanation to a few of the experimental findings. In general, it is pretty clear that those who reject QM or do not understand QM very well, will reject a Casimir force despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of it. Jones, I know this. I ask why the observed force is attributed to the ZPE when it could also be attributed to chemical attraction. Just because a collection of mathematical assumption can be made to fit does not prove the conclusion is real. It is true that the Casimir force was not measured to high precision until the mid 1990s, but it has since been verified precisely and the theory is essentially proved in practice. Moreover the Casimir force has become important in computer technology, especially micro-mechanical structures like hard disks heads. The terabyte hard drive would be impossible without application of Casimir dynamics just as the CPU would be impossible without QM electron tunneling. Of course QM is required. I'm not rejecting QM. I'm rejecting a particular application of QM. What would happen if this particular application turned out to be wrong? If so, the equations would be modified and a new application of QM would be created. The issue only involves whether a ZPE has been detected using what is called the Casimir effect. If the Casimir effect were produced by chemical attraction, QM would not change. However, the way ZPE is explained by QM would change. When you reject most of QM, you dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. ES: First of all, all materials are assumed and found to be transparent to the ZPE. Yet when a small gap is created in a material, this gap is claimed to produce an imbalance in the ZPE such that a force is created and energy can be extracted. A glass lens is transparent to light yet it can be focused so that 90% of the thermal energy of photons in sunlight can be applied to a few percent of the corresponding surface area. A lens works because it causes the photons to follow a controlled path as the material interacts with the photons. In the case of ZPE, the form of the energy does not interact with a material. If it did, a lens could be created so that ZPE could be focused and used as a ray of extreme intensity. That obviously is not possible. Therefore, your analogy does not apply. Temperatures sufficient to melt steel are possible. This is a decent analogy for the kind of imbalance which appears at nano-geometry but with ZPE focusing instead of photons. In fact, the term virtual photons is used with ZPE. The term virtual means only that a condition has to be pretended to exist so that the math works. This is only a kludge to avoid correcting idea. Ed Storms Jones
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes from the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence the LENR process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables were important. I can now identify the important variables, but money is required to use equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at the nano level. LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves. Unfortunately, the people who attempt to explain the effect have not identified the correct variables. As a result, people have been wondering aimlessly in the wilderness in search of the gold. A few people have found nuggets by chance, but the main ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close as anyone to finding the main ore body, but he is not telling where his gold outcrop is located. I'm trying to follow his trail. Ed Storms On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Jed: ... Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he ran a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%, or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is. The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real. That's all there is to it. I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly generate excess heat 100% of the time? I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal. I’m also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past quarter of a century. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Jed, the procedures you and we describe improve the chance of creating a working cathode but this does not make it 100%. McKubre also had good success, but only as long as he used Pd from a particular source. Other people have had the same experience. The source and the treatment are both important but a person only has control over the treatment. Some sources are better than others. Violante has created a source with a high probability for success but this Pd is not generally available. The Pd-B made by NRL is said to have high probability, but this material is also not generally available. Why the source is important is a matter of debate, with the argument being determined by theory. If we had a laboratory able to combine these ideas and apply them using modern equipment, we might find the solution. Ed Storms Ed On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly generate excess heat 100% of the time? Ed says no, but as a practical matter I think he did, and so did Cravens, and Pons. That's what I said here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf I mean it works even though there is no theory, and even though it takes months to find one good cathode. It isn't useful, but it works. I'll bet if someone spends a year doing the procedures in this paper with another 92 cathodes, some will work. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf Needless to say, if the people from ELFORSK are right, Rossi is miles ahead of this. Even though he has no theory as far as I know. - Jed
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
In addition to destructive analysis, the cell eventually dies. LENR has a limited life. In addition, once a cell works, finding out what can cause an increase or decrease is important, which eventually destroys the effect. The data is hen provided in papers, hundreds of which are now available. There is no longer any rational excuse for not accepting LENR as real. Ed Storms On Mar 9, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells. Where are they? Most of the ones I know of were used up in destructive testing. As Mike Melich put it, what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep. FP sent all of theirs back to Johnson Matthey, and they did not know what happened to them after that. (That was part of the agreement.) The people at the ENEA are compiling an extensive database of the material characteristics of cathodes they make. I assume they have to use destructive testing in the end. Ohmori had a box full of them. I have no idea what happened to them. There are about a thousand used cathodes at the U. Missouri SKINR lab. I think that is how many they said. Many produced heat. I do not know much about what they are doing with them. A lot of them fall apart, so they examine them to figure out why. The follow-up analysis of the cathode is as important as the experiment itself. - Jed
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Mar 9, 2014, at 4:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Hi Ed, Based on what little I have been able to comprehend, I get the sense that that learning how to create appropriate surface topologies, (most likely at the nano-scale) may ultimately turn out to play a crucial role in igniting reliably consistent reactions. That is where the action is, Steven. It is on the surface in nanosized sites. That location is in conflict with most explanations and is very hard to explore without suitable tools. If creating appropriate surface topologies is a key factor... I'm curious. Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example, allow us to cut grooves and valleys in the target surface material on an appropriate nano-scale? Yes, this could be done several different ways and has been suggested. However, the tools require money to use. I realize nano-scale means working with structures as small as at the atomic scale. I know research labs have already proven we can nudge individual atoms around on a surface, and even spell words. I get the sense that demonstrated procedures of this nature are at present totally impractical, and certainly not useful on an industrial scale. Once the type, size, and location of the NAE is identified, making it on an industrial scale would not be a problem. I have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance the CF/LENR effect – perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are currently being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of CDs and DVDs. Using laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS is an example of a matured technology. I’ve wondered if a similar “mature” technology might eventually turn out to suit LENR objectives on a commercial scale as well. Laser are useful for somethings but that is not the method I would recommend. Ed Storms Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything. Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes from the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence the LENR process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables were important. I can now identify the important variables, but money is required to use equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at the nano level. LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves. Unfortunately, the people who attempt to explain the effect have not identified the correct variables. As a result, people have been wondering aimlessly in the wilderness in search of the gold. A few people have found nuggets by chance, but the main ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close as anyone to finding the main ore body, but he is not telling where his gold outcrop is located. I'm trying to follow his trail. Ed Storms On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Jed: ... Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he ran a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%, or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is. The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real. That's all there is to it. I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly generate excess heat 100% of the time? I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal. I’m also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past quarter of a century. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Mar 9, 2014, at 5:02 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: I sed: I have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance the CF/LENR effect – perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are currently being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of CDs and DVDs. Using laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS is an example of a matured technology. I’ve wondered if a similar “mature” technology might eventually turn out to suit LENR objectives on a commercial scale as well. From Ed: Laser are useful for somethings but that is not the method I would recommend. What is your recommendation, Ed? …or am I beginning to step into NDA ground. Not so much NDA because much of the general approach is public knowledge. Ironically. the longer people wait to bring serious funding into the effort, the more basic ideas will become public knowledge and unavailable for patent protection. Eventually, only the lawyers and China will make money. Ed Storms Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. Yes, that is the assumption. The issue is whether that assumption is valid. Can a large number of sinks participate in what is a random process such that they can share mass-energy? Can this collection remain intact for the time required for the process to go to completion. You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. This concept is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Ed Storms Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of any practical intensity. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. Yes, that is the assumption. The issue is whether that assumption is valid. Can a large number of sinks participate in what is a random process such that they can share mass-energy? Can this collection remain intact for the time required for the process to go to completion. You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. This concept is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Ed Storms Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Bob, let me see if I can simplify the issue. For fusion to occur, two D must get close enough for the two nuclei to combine. This process is prevented by the Coulomb barrier, which requires energy to overcome. A static magnetic field does not supply energy. Once the two nuclei combine, the mass-energy must be dissipated. This can be done by fragmentation of the resulting nucleus, i.e. hot fusion, or by release of energy as many photons. Observation places a limit on the energy the photons can have. You bring spin into the discussion. The spin state has a limit to how much energy it can hold. In addition, if spin is accepted as an actual rotation about an axis, creating this spin requires the law of conservation of momentum be considered and a process needs to be identified that can apply a force to the particle such that it spins rather than moves in a line. I see no way for this to happen in your description. If spin is viewed only as another variable in equations to allow them to fit data, then I do not know how to evaluate your claim. We know that all energy that is emitted with the alpha particle eventually appears as heat and the helium ends up with its normal spin state. Therefore, energy imagined to exist as spin acts exactly like translational energy in the real world. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in that lattice. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of any practical intensity. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
OK, Axil. We have an impasse. I will not accept any claim made by DGT unless the study is described in detail and can be evaluated. People seem to accept their statements without question. Where is the basic skepticism typical of all good science? In addition, I do not believe the Ni has any direct role in the nuclear process. The heat is only generated by fusion of H as I have described. So we have no more to discuss. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote: I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Both Rossi and DGT state that nickel isotopes of zero spin will react and nickel isotopes with non zero spins do not. This is both experimental data and an engineering requirement. The theory that purports to describe LENR must account for this spin based characterization. I will not accept a theory that does not explain spin as a factor in the LENR reaction. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bob, let me see if I can simplify the issue. For fusion to occur, two D must get close enough for the two nuclei to combine. This process is prevented by the Coulomb barrier, which requires energy to overcome. A static magnetic field does not supply energy. Once the two nuclei combine, the mass-energy must be dissipated. This can be done by fragmentation of the resulting nucleus, i.e. hot fusion, or by release of energy as many photons. Observation places a limit on the energy the photons can have. You bring spin into the discussion. The spin state has a limit to how much energy it can hold. In addition, if spin is accepted as an actual rotation about an axis, creating this spin requires the law of conservation of momentum be considered and a process needs to be identified that can apply a force to the particle such that it spins rather than moves in a line. I see no way for this to happen in your description. If spin is viewed only as another variable in equations to allow them to fit data, then I do not know how to evaluate your claim. We know that all energy that is emitted with the alpha particle eventually appears as heat and the helium ends up with its normal spin state. Therefore, energy imagined to exist as spin acts exactly like translational energy in the real world. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in that lattice. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Eric Walker This working assumption (of a known fusion reaction) is not justifiable by facts, logic or common sense. Sure. That's you're opinion. You're entitled to an opinion. Sorry to have made this blanket statement in regard to your prior post specifically, Eric, since it is a generic criticism to many of the posts on Vortex and not personal - but… No, it’s not opinion when 100% of the available proof is on your side. It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion reaction, since it is fact that no known nuclear fusion reaction is gamma free. QED. Jones, this statement is not correct. LENR emits photons. These photons are not as energetic as those produced by many normal nuclear reactions, hence most do not escape the apparatus. Nevertheless, the mass-energy is released as photons as is normal and is required of a nuclear reaction. The only unknown is the mechanism causing this process. Obviously, a process is required that does not operate during hot fusion. Nevertheless, nuclear products are formed that can only result from a nuclear reaction having the known and well understood consequences. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Jones, bremsstrahlung or slowing down radiation is not produced by photons. This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such as alpha emission. LENR produces neither kind of radiation. Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an issue because all the mass-energy is dissipated as photons. The only question is how this happens. I have proposed a mechanism. The only issue is whether this mechanism is plausible and consistent will all the other observations. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Bob Cook There are nuclear events that occur without emission of gammas. The decay of Ni-59 is an example. What's different in Ni-59 with respect to most other radioactive decay? Bob - It is not gammas alone which are absent in LENR - but gammas and bremsstrahlung… which of course is lower energy - x-ray level and EUV but still measurable. In these posts - we do not always type in both words in every post - since the latter is so damn hard to spell, but when you have one MeV in excess energy - as does Ni-59, you should have measurable radiation and especially when the reactor is opened, it will be noticed due to the rather long half-life. However, of all the possible novel Ni-H reactions which could be proposed – a QM variation on this one would be a decent fit – as EC would be easier to hide. Substantial cobalt in the ash – instead of copper - would be proof. One could imagine a DDL of the H atom using its reduced electron orbital to tunnel into Ni-58, taking the nucleus to Ni-59 in an energy-deficient way if the spin problem can be dealt with, as if it were an energy-deficient neutron, and having only about 100-200 keV of excess energy which would almost fit the Rossi evidence if the half-life was reduced. The amount of cobalt which should be in the ash is predictable. Is it there?
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, bremsstrahlung or slowing down radiation is not produced by photons. Who said it was? I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought up photons by talking about gamma emissions, which are photons. You then added the production of bremsstrahlung, which I simply pointed out is not produced by gamma. You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation of intense photon emission - and am still waiting. I sent a list of references. If you want a copy of a particular paper to read, ask and I will send what I have. Unfortunately, I can not send using Vortex and I can not send all the papers. This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such as alpha emission. LENR produces neither kind of radiation. What? Are you now saying that the helium you claim to see in Pd-D does not begin as an alpha particles? Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an issue because all the mass-energy is dissipated as photons. There is no proof of this. The proof is in the behavior. This is the only conclusion consistent with all behavior. Unfortunately, a book is required to present this information in a form and as complete as you require. I'm attempting to do this. Please be patient. The only question is how this happens. I have proposed a mechanism. The only issue is whether this mechanism is plausible and consistent will all the other observations. It is not plausible if you cannot document photons sufficient to account for the heat. I agree, the measurement of heat and radiation have not been done in a way to show a quantitative correlation. However, I suggest you apply this standard to the other explanations as well. If you do, I think you will have to agree that no explanation meeting this requirements presently exists, including your own. Ed Storms Where is the documentation? Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones-- Alphas would not produce Bremstrallung, if they gain no kinetic energy in being produced. Energy in the form of angular momentum would not produce the B word. Bob- That much is almost true, but you overlook the 800 pound gorilla in the corner - TSC. Maybe you are unfamiliar with it. This happens to be one of the more credible versions of Pd-D in my opinion since no gamma is expected - yet the kinetics of the reaction produce bremsstrahlung. Apparently many in Japan think that Takahashi's version makes the most sense also but AFAIK he has not documented the spectra of the B word. He postulates that a BEC of deuterons is more likely to produce 2 energetic alphas from 4 deuterons than the alternative situation. TSC produces 8Be first which decays into 4He + 4He liberating up to 47.6 MeV of kinetic energy, no gamma and the reaction is known in cosmology from supernova - so it is not an invention. As an alternative of D+D - He, which has to overcome the huge problem of least-favored-channel, TSC is a superior Point of View to many. Jones, Hagelstein showed that this proposed reaction was not consistent with what is observed. As a result, Takahashi changed his explanation to claim that Be8 formed and dissipated most of the mass-energy as photons before it split into two alpha. Unfortunately, this additional required feature subtracts from the plausibility of the basic idea. Ed Storms 1.Hagelstein, P.I., Secondary Neutron Yield in the Presence of Energetic Alpha Particles in PdD. J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2010. 3: p. 41-49. 2.Hagelstein, P.I., On the connection between Ka X-rays and energetic alpha particles in Fleischmann–Pons experiments. J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2010. 3: p. 50-58. 3.Hagelstein, P.L., Simple Parameterizations of the Deuteron–Deuteron Fusion Cross Sections. J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2010. 3: p. 31-34. 4.Hagelstein, P.L., Neutron Yield for Energetic Deuterons in PdD and in D2O. J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2010. 3: p. 35-40. It is a very strong argument since no gammas are expected - all kinetic. All B-word. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept. The energy generated when mass-energy is released requires emission of at least two particles for the energy to be dissipated. I know of no example in nature where this requirement does not operate when energy is released. If energy is not released immediately, but is retained in the nucleus, this nucleus is found to be unstable and will eventually release energy over a period of time by emission of a particle, including a photon. This is how nature is found to behave. Imagining otherwise is not useful unless you have observed support for the idea. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said: Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. I note that, if there is no linear momentum to start, two particles would not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may be changed to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, bremsstrahlung or slowing down radiation is not produced by photons. Who said it was? I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought up photons by talking about gamma emissions, which are photons. You then added the production of bremsstrahlung, which I simply pointed out is not produced by gamma. You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation of intense photon emission - and am still waiting. I sent a list of references. If you want a copy of a particular paper to read, ask and I will send what I have. Unfortunately, I can not send using Vortex and I can not send all the papers. This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such as alpha emission. LENR produces neither kind of radiation. What? Are you now saying that the helium you claim to see in Pd-D does not begin as an alpha particles? Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an issue because all the mass-energy is dissipated as photons. There is no proof of this. The proof is in the behavior. This is the only conclusion consistent with all behavior. Unfortunately, a book is required to present this information in a form and as complete as you require. I'm attempting to do this. Please be patient. The only question is how this happens. I have proposed a mechanism. The only issue is whether this mechanism is plausible and consistent will all the other observations. It is not plausible if you cannot document photons sufficient to account for the heat. I agree, the measurement of heat and radiation have not been done in a way to show a quantitative correlation. However, I suggest you apply this standard to the other explanations as well. If you do, I think you will have to agree that no explanation meeting this requirements presently exists, including your own. Ed Storms Where is the documentation? Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Axil, I would be interested in your statements of absolute certainty if I had not studied LENR in great depth. Nothing personal, but you do not know what you are talking about. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: Things in LENR are more complicated than you are stating. Sometimes gammas are produced in LENR and most times it isn't. The cause of Gamma thermalization is connected with a nuclear based positive feedback loop in the energy conversion/thermalization mechanism. But LENR can happen even when only gammas are produced. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept. The energy generated when mass-energy is released requires emission of at least two particles for the energy to be dissipated. I know of no example in nature where this requirement does not operate when energy is released. If energy is not released immediately, but is retained in the nucleus, this nucleus is found to be unstable and will eventually release energy over a period of time by emission of a particle, including a photon. This is how nature is found to behave. Imagining otherwise is not useful unless you have observed support for the idea. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said: Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. I note that, if there is no linear momentum to start, two particles would not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may be changed to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, bremsstrahlung or slowing down radiation is not produced by photons. Who said it was? I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought up photons by talking about gamma emissions, which are photons. You then added the production of bremsstrahlung, which I simply pointed out is not produced by gamma. You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation of intense photon emission - and am still waiting. I sent a list of references. If you want a copy of a particular paper to read, ask and I will send what I have. Unfortunately, I can not send using Vortex and I can not send all the papers. This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such as alpha emission. LENR produces neither kind of radiation. What? Are you now saying that the helium you claim to see in Pd-D does not begin as an alpha particles? Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an issue because all the mass-energy is dissipated as photons. There is no proof of this. The proof is in the behavior. This is the only conclusion consistent with all behavior. Unfortunately, a book is required to present this information in a form and as complete as you require. I'm attempting to do this. Please be patient. The only question is how this happens. I have proposed a mechanism. The only issue is whether this mechanism is plausible and consistent will all the other observations. It is not plausible if you cannot document photons sufficient to account for the heat. I agree, the measurement of heat and radiation have not been done in a way to show a quantitative correlation. However, I suggest you apply this standard to the other explanations as well. If you do, I think you will have to agree that no explanation meeting this requirements presently exists, including your own. Ed Storms Where is the documentation? Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Yes Dave, that is true, but that is not what is observed. This reaction is known to happen less than 1% of the time during hot fusion and it produces a 23 MeV gamma that is required to conserve momentum. This reaction is clearly not observed. We know this for a fact. Therefore, this idea is irrelevant. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, the energy can be released in the form of a particle, such as an alpha, and a gamma ray. Energy and momentum can be conserved in that manner. The bulk of the energy will be given to the gamma ray due to the large difference in masses.Think of a rifle firing a bullet. Most of the energy ends up in the bullet while linear momentum is conserved. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept. The energy generated when mass-energy is released requires emission of at least two particles for the energy to be dissipated. I know of no example in nature where this requirement does not operate when energy is released. If energy is not released immediately, but is retained in the nucleus, this nucleus is found to be unstable and will eventually release energy over a period of time by emission of a particle, including a photon. This is how nature is found to behave. Imagining otherwise is not useful unless you have observed support for the idea. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said: Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. I note that, if there is no linear momentum to start, two particles would not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may be changed to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, bremsstrahlung or slowing down radiation is not produced by photons. Who said it was? I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought up photons by talking about gamma emissions, which are photons. You then added the production of bremsstrahlung, which I simply pointed out is not produced by gamma. You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation of intense photon emission - and am still waiting. I sent a list of references. If you want a copy of a particular paper to read, ask and I will send what I have. Unfortunately, I can not send using Vortex and I can not send all the papers. This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such as alpha emission. LENR produces neither kind of radiation. What? Are you now saying that the helium you claim to see in Pd-D does not begin as an alpha particles? Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an issue because all the mass-energy is dissipated as photons. There is no proof of this. The proof is in the behavior. This is the only conclusion consistent with all behavior. Unfortunately, a book is required to present this information in a form and as complete as you require. I'm attempting to do this. Please be patient. The only question is how this happens. I have proposed a mechanism. The only issue is whether this mechanism is plausible and consistent will all the other observations. It is not plausible if you cannot document photons sufficient to account for the heat. I agree, the measurement of heat and radiation have not been done in a way to show a quantitative correlation. However, I suggest you apply this standard to the other explanations as well. If you do, I think you will have to agree that no explanation meeting this requirements presently exists, including your own. Ed Storms Where is the documentation? Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
So your argument is that Hagelstein has generated incorrect arguments simply to support his own theory. And that no matter what is said about the Takahashi theory, it must be correct because it does not emit strong gamma and it must be better than my theory. You apparently do not acknowledge any fact of nature independent of personal motivation. Amazing. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, Hagelstein showed that this proposed reaction was not consistent with what is observed. We must also realize that Hagelstein is promoting his own theory which is not consistent with the rest of nuclear physics. As a result, Takahashi changed his explanation to claim that Be8 formed and dissipated most of the mass-energy as photons before it split into two alpha. Unfortunately, this additional required feature subtracts from the plausibility of the basic idea. Or else it improves it. Well in the end, it is no less plausible than your contention that a strong gamma can be dissipated completely in the form of low energy photons, and in fact TSC still does not have to deal with the strong disproportion of huge gamma, since the alphas are so massive compared to any photon. It’s all about disproportion. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms So your argument is that Hagelstein has generated incorrect arguments simply to support his own theory. They may or may not be incorrect, but they are definitely self-serving. Have you read them? I have and the papers simply show the consequences of particle emission from any source. His arguments are correct and place a limit on the energy compared to what is observed. This is less self-serving than your arguments. And that no matter what is said about the Takahashi theory, it must be correct because it does not emit strong gamma and it must be better than my theory. Any theory of deuterium to 4He fusion is more likely to be correct to the degree that it does not “wish away” a strong gamma. Yes and I accept that you obsessed with this argument. I now give up trying to show you how this opinion is not correct and is not consistent with what is observed You apparently do not acknowledge any fact of nature independent of personal motivation. Amazing. You have presented no fact of nature to consider, and no indisputable fact of any kind - so my personal motivation does not enter into the discussion. Once again, you defect the issue and ignore what I have provided. Are you a lawyer, Jones? Ed Storms Jones
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:45 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I was not suggesting that this reaction is the main one, I was merely pointing out that it is possible. Someone made a blanket statement that this path was not possible and I wanted to clear the air. Dave, none of us has the time to describe every aspect of the issue in each e-mail. We all have to assume the reader has done some homework and knows that the statement is not complete and that the writer also know this. In any case, emission of a photon makes the process two body, not one body as I was describing. The conservation of energy and momentum does not prevent this from happening as was stated. Had the original proposition been that it was not likely or observed I would have remained silent. The fact is that during cold fusion NO energetic gamma is emitted, which was known in 1989. Therefore, this issue is not relevant. People propose the He4 is emitted as an alpha, which means the helium has translational energy. This is not possible when one particle is involved, which is what I said. Takahashi proposes Be8 forms and decomposes into two alpha, which does conserve energy and momentum and is not inconsistent with the basic requirements. However, the resulting alpha would have too much energy for the secondary radiation to be missed. Therefore, this proposed reaction does not occur. Each theory suggested so far can be eliminated by identifying these conflicts with observation. If the observations were not so many and so strong, a person might conclude that LENR is impossible, which of course is the skeptical conclusion. Nevertheless, the effect is real and therefore it must have an explanation. Until people actually search where the keys are located rather than under the lamppost, success will be impossible. Ed Storms Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes Dave, that is true, but that is not what is observed. This reaction is known to happen less than 1% of the time during hot fusion and it produces a 23 MeV gamma that is required to conserve momentum. This reaction is clearly not observed. We know this for a fact. Therefore, this idea is irrelevant. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, the energy can be released in the form of a particle, such as an alpha, and a gamma ray. Energy and momentum can be conserved in that manner. The bulk of the energy will be given to the gamma ray due to the large difference in masses.Think of a rifle firing a bullet. Most of the energy ends up in the bullet while linear momentum is conserved. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept. The energy generated when mass-energy is released requires emission of at least two particles for the energy to be dissipated. I know of no example in nature where this requirement does not operate when energy is released. If energy is not released immediately, but is retained in the nucleus, this nucleus is found to be unstable and will eventually release energy over a period of time by emission of a particle, including a photon. This is how nature is found to behave. Imagining otherwise is not useful unless you have observed support for the idea. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said: Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. I note that, if there is no linear momentum to start, two particles would not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may be changed to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, bremsstrahlung or slowing down radiation is not produced by photons. Who said it was? I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought up photons by talking about gamma emissions, which are photons. You then added the production of bremsstrahlung, which I simply pointed out is not produced by gamma. You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation of intense photon emission - and am still waiting. I sent a list of references. If you want
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Bob, 23.8 MeV of energy must be released for each He made. Each emitted He4 from Be8 needs to carry 23.8 MeV of energy. Please explain how even a small fraction of that energy can appear as spin. When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. Ed On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said: However, the resulting alpha would have too much energy for the secondary radiation to be missed. If the alphas are in high spin states upon the decomposition of Be-8, then small amounts of energy associated with transition from one state to the next lower state would never be seen. If many electrons are involved in the reaction it seems likely only small energy packets would be released. The secondary radiation may be missed. Why do you imply the secondary radiation should necessarily be a high energy photon(s)? Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:45 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I was not suggesting that this reaction is the main one, I was merely pointing out that it is possible. Someone made a blanket statement that this path was not possible and I wanted to clear the air. Dave, none of us has the time to describe every aspect of the issue in each e-mail. We all have to assume the reader has done some homework and knows that the statement is not complete and that the writer also know this. In any case, emission of a photon makes the process two body, not one body as I was describing. The conservation of energy and momentum does not prevent this from happening as was stated. Had the original proposition been that it was not likely or observed I would have remained silent. The fact is that during cold fusion NO energetic gamma is emitted, which was known in 1989. Therefore, this issue is not relevant. People propose the He4 is emitted as an alpha, which means the helium has translational energy. This is not possible when one particle is involved, which is what I said. Takahashi proposes Be8 forms and decomposes into two alpha, which does conserve energy and momentum and is not inconsistent with the basic requirements. However, the resulting alpha would have too much energy for the secondary radiation to be missed. Therefore, this proposed reaction does not occur. Each theory suggested so far can be eliminated by identifying these conflicts with observation. If the observations were not so many and so strong, a person might conclude that LENR is impossible, which of course is the skeptical conclusion. Nevertheless, the effect is real and therefore it must have an explanation. Until people actually search where the keys are located rather than under the lamppost, success will be impossible. Ed Storms Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes Dave, that is true, but that is not what is observed. This reaction is known to happen less than 1% of the time during hot fusion and it produces a 23 MeV gamma that is required to conserve momentum. This reaction is clearly not observed. We know this for a fact. Therefore, this idea is irrelevant. Ed Storms On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:34 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, the energy can be released in the form of a particle, such as an alpha, and a gamma ray. Energy and momentum can be conserved in that manner. The bulk of the energy will be given to the gamma ray due to the large difference in masses.Think of a rifle firing a bullet. Most of the energy ends up in the bullet while linear momentum is conserved. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept. The energy generated when mass-energy is released requires emission of at least two particles for the energy to be dissipated. I know of no example in nature where this requirement does not operate when energy is released. If energy is not released immediately, but is retained in the nucleus, this nucleus is found to be unstable and will eventually release energy over a period of time by emission of a particle, including a photon. This is how nature is found to behave. Imagining otherwise is not useful unless you have observed support
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 4, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Bob Cook wrote: From the experiments on NiH it seems that it is pretty difficult to get protium inside the lattice--unlike Pd. This seems to point to surface reactions for Ni and bulk reaction for Pd. Bob Bob, all the evidence shows that the nuclear reaction using Pd occurs on or near the surface. The fact that Pd absorbs hydrogen is not relevant. This ability to absorb has two effects. It allows hydrogen to leave the surface, which lowers the amount of D on the surface available for fusion, thereby limiting the reaction. And, the D in the lattice can supply the surface with D when D is not available from the gas or electrolytic action. In short, the process is more complex than you assume. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Bob, you need to read more. At least 18 studies of He in Pd are available. In addition the issue has been discussed in detail in my book and in The status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften, 97, 861 (2010). I sent a copy to your personal address. Ed Storms On Mar 4, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed- In the Navy's SPAWAR experiments, was it clear there was no He found in the bulk Pd? It seems I remember they noted He production. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 4, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Bob Cook wrote: From the experiments on NiH it seems that it is pretty difficult to get protium inside the lattice--unlike Pd. This seems to point to surface reactions for Ni and bulk reaction for Pd. Bob Bob, all the evidence shows that the nuclear reaction using Pd occurs on or near the surface. The fact that Pd absorbs hydrogen is not relevant. This ability to absorb has two effects. It allows hydrogen to leave the surface, which lowers the amount of D on the surface available for fusion, thereby limiting the reaction. And, the D in the lattice can supply the surface with D when D is not available from the gas or electrolytic action. In short, the process is more complex than you assume. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Axil the tubes should be solid because LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. To strengthen the tubes and provide a longer service life, the tubes may be filled with tough stuff like tungsten, for example, It’s probably a lot more complicated than that. Even Ed seems to be admitting now that there are several possible varieties of LENR J Jones, I believe several different reactions occur but they all are caused by the same NAE and the same mechanism. The Rossi effect creates energy by p-e-p fusion. The F-P effect produces energy by d-e-d fusion. Tritium is made by d-e-p fusion. Transmutation is caused by various metal atoms being present in the site where fusion occurs and they become part of the process. Transmutation clearly is not possible without energy that can be supplied by fusion of hydrogen. All the nuclear processes are related and are part of the same basic process. Nature does not keep reinventing the wheel for every different reaction. At least that is my assumption and I sticking to it. Ed Storms.
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 1, 2014, at 10:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: Rather than suggesting any idea that comes to mind, the effort to identify this mechanism must focus on what is actually observed. Axil: As revealed by DGT, where does the 1.6 tesla magnetic field at 20 centimeters from the nickel powder come from? This field increases in strength as each of the cyclic reactions advances. Ed is ignoring this experimental observation as irrelevant to his view of LENR. That is fantasy Ed. Axil, you accept a claim for which no evidence has been presented, that has not and can not be reviewed and studied, and that contains logical conflicts. You accept this as evidence for an idea you have that is not consistent with any other observation. My approach is not fantasy, it is what is required of good science. The first step in the development of any theory is to determine what is real. You have not done this. Ed Storms On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by a real mechanism controlled by real parameters. It is exactly like hot fusion in this regard. Unlike hot fusion, a new mechanism is operating that is not like what physics has accepted. Rather than suggesting any idea that comes to mind, the effort to identify this mechanism must focus on what is actually observed. What is observed creates limits and boundaries on what mechanisms are possible. Eventually, all mechanisms but one will be eliminated and at that point LENR will be understood. The process of finding this single mechanism can be speeded up by eliminating a lot of proposed mechanisms right from the start. For example, any proposed mechanism that conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics can be rejected without further consideration. Of course, this requires these laws be understood and accepted, but that is a different issue. This is like looking for gold. Simply wondering the landscape and pointing at every mountain as a possible location of the gold vein is not useful. The landscape needs to be studied, the geological events need to be identified, and location of found nuggets needs to be considered. Only then can the buried gold be found by eliminating all the regions where it cannot be located. I'm attempting to do this but I find very little interest in this approach. Ed Storms On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- Regarding your comment copied from below--No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first place. --I agree. However, you seem to always take on a discussion to find the cause of the reaction considering basic physical parameters that you seem to recognize as real. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper As I have posted repeatedly, the key to developing an active and very strong reaction is to provide a wide range of micro/nanoparticle sizes. This requirement comes from nanoplasmonic doctrine. A single sized particle does not work. For example, in the open source high school reactor (cop = 4) that does work, the design calls for a tungsten particle collection of varying diameters. The 5 micron micro-particles coated with nanowire is important in feeding power into the aggregation of smaller nanoparticles. This is how Rossi’s secret sauce fits in. Potassium nanoparticles provide and intermediate sized particle population to the particle ensembles. Hydrogen provides the smallest particle population. When there are particles of varying size clump together, and alight on the nickel nanowires, strong dipole motion in the micro particles drive the reactions in the spaces between the hydrogen nanoparticles. The bigger particles act like step-up windings in a high voltage transformer as power is feed to the smallest particles. If a single diameter sized nanoparticle is used, the reaction will not work. If only nanoparticles are use in the reaction, the reaction will not be strong. On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. As is typical, the situation in the chemical structure is more complex than expected. No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first place. Ed Storms On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Wouldn't
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 1, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms SPP may be present and important to some phenomenon, but they are very unlikely to have a role in initiating a nuclear reaction. Whatever causes LENR must be able to overcome a significant Coulomb barrier and at the same time dissipate MeV of energy. I see no way the SPP can do this. Well, Ed this thread started with consideration of the Cooper patent application. Fig 1 of that patent describes an experiment, which is the essence of the entire disclosure really, in which a light source is the only power input and helium is seen as evidence of LENR. Jones, why do you accept this as evidence? The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are proven. This is not a proven claim. In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. This method is not sufficient or even plausible based on what is required. If the patent is accurate, SPP is the prime candidate to be the initiator of the reaction since obviously light photons alone are orders of magnitude too weak. As for the way this can happen, the electric fields of SPP are said to be rather massive. Possibly this relates to local superconductivity. This is actually a rather elegant hypothesis which is being championed by NASA. Helium has been criticized by some outspoken observers of D+D in Pd fusion as being too ubiquitous to be good evidence of LENR. Krivit has made his reputation promoting this POV. It is curious that you now seem to be siding with Krivit on the validity of this kind of evidence, at least as it would apply to Cooper's claim. Helium has been made by at least 18 studies without ambiguity and after careful measurements that can be studied and evaluated. Chris has not made such measurements. The issue has nothing to do with Krivit who has no idea what he is talking about. Why use the analysis of someone who is ignorant of LENR and of even basic science? If Cooper's helium detection was valid, then it would seem to warrant the same level of credibility as anyone else's - and possibly more, since the experiment is so simple and straightforward. Yes, if the measurements were valid, what you say is true. However, no evidence shows they are valid. Anyone can make claims. The only reason a claim should be accepted is if it can be proven. Otherwise, this is a waste of time and a distraction. Ed Storms Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Bob, you make this much too complicated. The second law says that energy cannot spontaneously concentrate. Yes, local energy can fluctuate, but for energy to be concentrated in one spot, an equal amount has to be lost elsewhere and moved to where energy is accumulating. This happens by random processes at a low level with a limit that can be identified. This limit is much too small to cause even a chemical reaction, (except under very unique conditions) much less a nuclear reaction. The entire field of chemistry supports this statement. This fact can be easily applied. The other laws can be applied in a similar way, but I will leave that exercize for the book. For example, the W-L theory requires 0.78 MeV to be concentrated in an electron to form the initiating neutron. This is not possible without violating the second law and what many scientists have observed to actually happen in nature. Therefore, the W-L theory can be rejected without any additional argument being made. No calculations are required and no QM arguments are going to change the conclusion. Accepting this requirement would be like accepting my claim that I can fly simply by waving my arms. Of course, if you were intent on believing Superman is real, you might consider the idea. :-) Ed On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I am not sure how you show that the 2nd and 3rd laws are met. It is not easy to calculate entropy and show how it increases. It would appear that the microstates possible decrease with the reaction since the He has a lower energy, However the rest of the system may have gained microstates associated with the calculation on entropy, S. I suspect this calculation will be hard in any LENR reaction. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Ed-- I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier you refer to: See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system. arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006 The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the order of 2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms van- ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The probability that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically for- bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly multiplied by the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is proportional to the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar contributions, multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region comprising many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an exper- imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential. He goes on to say: In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites, the state of N coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric. Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably forbid the emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused deuterons to helium-4. References [1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens. Matt.). [2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996). [3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.Nakai, A. Agui, Y.Tominaga, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. 5 7761–7770 (1993). Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by a real mechanism controlled by real parameters. It is exactly like hot fusion in this regard. Unlike hot fusion, a new mechanism is operating that is not like what physics has accepted. Rather than suggesting any idea that comes to mind, the effort to identify this mechanism must focus on what is actually observed. What is observed creates limits and boundaries on what mechanisms are possible. Eventually, all mechanisms but one will be eliminated and at that point LENR will be understood. The process of finding this single mechanism can be speeded up by eliminating a lot of proposed mechanisms right from the start. For example, any proposed mechanism that conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics can be rejected without further consideration. Of course, this requires these laws
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:07 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- Your issue seems to be that various players in the LENR RD field are not reliable with respect to the data they advertise, particularly with respect to magnetic fields. You may be right. However if you are, there are a lot of fakers regarding this one basic parameter. Bob, no claim should be accepted unless it can be studied and evaluated. No assumption should be made just because it fits with a favorite explanation. This has nothing to do with reliability or being a faker, although some people publish better data than others. People are easily fooled by what they see and frequently publish what they truly believe, but the observations are sometimes wrong. That is why peer review is valuable. PF did not discuss magnetic fields, however, anyone with basic knowledge of how an electric coil (obvious in the PF experimental set up) creates a magnetic field with the passage of current, can accurately deduce the resulting magnetic field, including the field within the Pd electrode, given the magnetic properties of Pd. Small magnetic fields are easy to create and are everywhere these days. They obviously do not initiate nuclear reactions. Of course, if the field can be made intense enough, a nuclear reaction might be initiated under very special conditions. However, so far no evidence shows that LENR requires a magnetic field or creates one when it is working. A question begs an answer. With you long-term, extensive exposure to the field who do you consider are the experimental truth tellers who do NOT avoid revealing measured parameters in their experiments so as to highlight mechanisms that are key to understanding LENR. The only thing that can be trusted are a series of observations by different people that show the same behavior or patterns. In other words, the observations must be replicated. In other words, who are the reliable scientists and technologists. I could give a list, but this would be useless because everyone has reported incorrect data on occasion. The only solution is to compare what is reported. I did this in my first book and will continue the approach in the second one. This is like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Only certain pieces fit together and when enough pieces are assembled, the picture can be identified. No single piece gives this information. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 1, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms SPP may be present and important to some phenomenon, but they are very unlikely to have a role in initiating a nuclear reaction. Whatever causes LENR must be able to overcome a significant Coulomb barrier and at the same time dissipate MeV of energy. I see no way the SPP can do this. Well, Ed this thread started with consideration of the Cooper patent application. Fig 1 of that patent describes an experiment, which is the essence of the entire disclosure really, in which a light source is the only power input and helium is seen as evidence of LENR. Jones, why do you accept this as evidence? The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are proven. This is not a proven claim. In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. This method is not sufficient or even plausible based on what is required. If the patent is accurate, SPP is the prime candidate to be the initiator of the reaction since obviously light photons alone are orders of magnitude too weak. As for the way this can happen, the electric fields of SPP are said to be rather massive. Possibly this relates to local superconductivity. This is actually a rather elegant hypothesis which is being championed by NASA. Helium has been criticized by some outspoken observers of D+D in Pd fusion as being too ubiquitous to be good evidence of LENR. Krivit has made his reputation promoting this POV. It is curious that you now seem to be siding with Krivit on the validity of this kind of evidence, at least as it would apply to Cooper's claim. Helium has been made by at least 18 studies without ambiguity and after careful measurements that can be studied and evaluated. Chris has not made such measurements. The issue has nothing to do with Krivit who has no idea what he is talking about. Why use the analysis of someone who is ignorant of LENR and of even basic science? If Cooper's helium detection was valid, then it would seem to warrant the same level of credibility as anyone else's - and possibly more
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
NO, THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.The issue is how QM applies to LENR. That is the only issue. It is a very simple concept. QM is a big subject having a huge range of applications. It works well under some conditions and it totally fails in others. Unless it is applied correctly, it would fail when it is used to explain LENR. Ed Storms On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- If you were light enough with feathers you probably could. It seems like the issue comes down to the question of whether QM theories reflect reality? Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you make this much too complicated. The second law says that energy cannot spontaneously concentrate. Yes, local energy can fluctuate, but for energy to be concentrated in one spot, an equal amount has to be lost elsewhere and moved to where energy is accumulating. This happens by random processes at a low level with a limit that can be identified. This limit is much too small to cause even a chemical reaction, (except under very unique conditions) much less a nuclear reaction. The entire field of chemistry supports this statement. This fact can be easily applied. The other laws can be applied in a similar way, but I will leave that exercize for the book. For example, the W-L theory requires 0.78 MeV to be concentrated in an electron to form the initiating neutron. This is not possible without violating the second law and what many scientists have observed to actually happen in nature. Therefore, the W-L theory can be rejected without any additional argument being made. No calculations are required and no QM arguments are going to change the conclusion. Accepting this requirement would be like accepting my claim that I can fly simply by waving my arms. Of course, if you were intent on believing Superman is real, you might consider the idea. :-) Ed On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I am not sure how you show that the 2nd and 3rd laws are met. It is not easy to calculate entropy and show how it increases. It would appear that the microstates possible decrease with the reaction since the He has a lower energy, However the rest of the system may have gained microstates associated with the calculation on entropy, S. I suspect this calculation will be hard in any LENR reaction. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Ed-- I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier you refer to: See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system. arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006 The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the order of 2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms van- ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The probability that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically for- bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly multiplied by the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is proportional to the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar contributions, multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region comprising many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an exper- imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential. He goes on to say: In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites, the state of N coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric. Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably forbid the emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused deuterons to helium-4. References [1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens. Matt.). [2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996). [3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.Nakai, A. Agui, Y.Tominaga, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. 5 7761–7770 (1993). Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by a real mechanism controlled by real parameters
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Jones, why do you accept this [Cooper patent application] as evidence? Ed - First off this is Vortex, not a peer review session. Cooper spent tens of thousands of dollars (possibly much more) over 8 years of RD ending with an effort to patent the CNT device which is described. That would mean little if he had not already patented an advanced water filtration device and brought it to market. His prior success speaks volumes. IOW he is a successful inventor and apparently has training in nuclear physics, and is one who believes that he has seen indicia of nuclear reactions. It is true that detecting helium is harder than detecting tritium, which we all wish he had done - and it is also true that many reports of helium commensurate with heat should be doubted. However, Ken has reported that Cooper has an advanced degree in nuclear science and that should be taken into account... yet even without one, he should be given benefit of the doubt, due to his track record with CNT and business acumen. Jones, I agree with your comments and these are the reasons I paid any attention to Chris in the first place. In addition, that CNT were a plausible location for LENR was obvious before Chris entered the picture. I had been trying to make them for study, but Chris already had them available, which accelerated the effort. Nevertheless, no claim, even by someone as famous as Einstein, should be accepted without more proof than a patent, especially a parent than has not been reduced to practice. The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. That is almost silly, given Cooper's business record and the expenses incurred in this work and his ability to hire an expert if need be. The specifications in the patent are adequate. There is sufficient information for a replication. Why did you not inquire as to how it was done (the helium measurement) instead of making vague innuendos that it was not done correctly? I'm not saying the measurement was done incorrectly. I'm saying we have no way of knowing whether it was done incorrectly or not. Therefore, the evidence is not worth considering. Why spend time discussing something that might not be true, especially when we have many very interesting observations that have been proven true. The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are proven. This is not a proven claim. Bizarre comment. Neither are your claims proved, Ed ... and most of the skeptics put you in the same boat as CC. But all of us realize that you are credible, and AFAIK Chris Cooper has not been shown to be incapable of doing a simple measurement, or paying an expert to do it. Jones, you do not believe everything you are told. How do you decide which part to believe and which part to ignore? Is only a PhD in physics and a successful business enough for you to believe anything a person tells you? Why should his experiment and claim be doubted without a bona fide effort to replicate? Apparently... in whatever you did to validate this work, you completely failed to use a coherent light source - so that effort was deficient from the git-go and probably not even worth mentioning - as creating a doubt. In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. Ed, this comment: on a material is disingenuous. OK, let me be clear, if shining a light, such as Chris used, on a CNT could produce LENR, the phenomenon would have been seen long ago. I can not tell you exactly what Chris did for legal reasons and he does not tell enough in the patent for you or anyone to know what he actually did. You seem to want to defend his claim for some reason. I, on the other hand choose to ignore his claim for the reasons I give. What are your reasons for accepting his claim? The material in question was CNT for goodness sakes ! one of the most advanced materials ever produced by science - and as a colloid in heavy water, and the phenomenon was probably subwatt. This material cost many hundreds per gram and represent millions of man-hour in advanced research both in the CNT and in the heavy water. This comment calls into question your motivation. WHAT?? What does this information have to do with our discussion? You seem to be drifting off into an entirely different subject. Moreover, if helium was detected, as Cooper asserts - and this can be replicated - then this is one of the most important experiments since PF. If and If. Yes, if the if is true, this is important. Meanwhile we have a huge amount of information that is not based on if. Why not give it your attention? If helium cannot be detected in a bona fide effort, then it would be nice to know actually that - but failing
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Mark, I'm not free to tell you what we did. In addition, the study was not documented because no indication of success was found. Someday, when money is available, this and many other possible conditions can be explored. Perhaps by then a useful explanation will be available to guide the work and eliminate many false leads. Right now, we can use information that has good support to show a path to this explanation. Running off in any direction that might seem interesting is not helpful. We now know enough about the phenomenon to outline the basic requirements of a theory and to show where to look for more detail. The claim made by Chris does not help this search. Ed Storms On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:11 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ed, I have a question. You stated that, I only know that we tested the CNT and the test failed. Did you use a coherent light source, which I believe was specified in Chris's patents? -Mark -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Jones, why do you accept this [Cooper patent application] as evidence? Ed - First off this is Vortex, not a peer review session. Cooper spent tens of thousands of dollars (possibly much more) over 8 years of RD ending with an effort to patent the CNT device which is described. That would mean little if he had not already patented an advanced water filtration device and brought it to market. His prior success speaks volumes. IOW he is a successful inventor and apparently has training in nuclear physics, and is one who believes that he has seen indicia of nuclear reactions. It is true that detecting helium is harder than detecting tritium, which we all wish he had done - and it is also true that many reports of helium commensurate with heat should be doubted. However, Ken has reported that Cooper has an advanced degree in nuclear science and that should be taken into account... yet even without one, he should be given benefit of the doubt, due to his track record with CNT and business acumen. Jones, I agree with your comments and these are the reasons I paid any attention to Chris in the first place. In addition, that CNT were a plausible location for LENR was obvious before Chris entered the picture. I had been trying to make them for study, but Chris already had them available, which accelerated the effort. Nevertheless, no claim, even by someone as famous as Einstein, should be accepted without more proof than a patent, especially a parent than has not been reduced to practice. The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. That is almost silly, given Cooper's business record and the expenses incurred in this work and his ability to hire an expert if need be. The specifications in the patent are adequate. There is sufficient information for a replication. Why did you not inquire as to how it was done (the helium measurement) instead of making vague innuendos that it was not done correctly? I'm not saying the measurement was done incorrectly. I'm saying we have no way of knowing whether it was done incorrectly or not. Therefore, the evidence is not worth considering. Why spend time discussing something that might not be true, especially when we have many very interesting observations that have been proven true. The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are proven. This is not a proven claim. Bizarre comment. Neither are your claims proved, Ed ... and most of the skeptics put you in the same boat as CC. But all of us realize that you are credible, and AFAIK Chris Cooper has not been shown to be incapable of doing a simple measurement, or paying an expert to do it. Jones, you do not believe everything you are told. How do you decide which part to believe and which part to ignore? Is only a PhD in physics and a successful business enough for you to believe anything a person tells you? Why should his experiment and claim be doubted without a bona fide effort to replicate? Apparently... in whatever you did to validate this work, you completely failed to use a coherent light source - so that effort was deficient from the git-go and probably not even worth mentioning - as creating a doubt. In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. Ed, this comment: on a material is disingenuous. OK, let me be clear, if shining a light, such as Chris used, on a CNT could produce LENR, the phenomenon would have been seen long ago. I can not tell you exactly what Chris did for legal reasons and he does not tell
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote: These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why can’t Ed replicate these experiments? Because I have only two hands and no financial support. If you want this replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. As is typical, the situation in the chemical structure is more complex than expected. No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first place. Ed Storms On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Wouldn't that lend itself to corroborating Ed Storms's theories about cracks the NAE? On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Frank roarty fr...@roarty.biz wrote: Jones, Yes, I agree.. the paper from Cornell re catalytic action only occurring at openings and defects in nano tubes
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by a real mechanism controlled by real parameters. It is exactly like hot fusion in this regard. Unlike hot fusion, a new mechanism is operating that is not like what physics has accepted. Rather than suggesting any idea that comes to mind, the effort to identify this mechanism must focus on what is actually observed. What is observed creates limits and boundaries on what mechanisms are possible. Eventually, all mechanisms but one will be eliminated and at that point LENR will be understood. The process of finding this single mechanism can be speeded up by eliminating a lot of proposed mechanisms right from the start. For example, any proposed mechanism that conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics can be rejected without further consideration. Of course, this requires these laws be understood and accepted, but that is a different issue. This is like looking for gold. Simply wondering the landscape and pointing at every mountain as a possible location of the gold vein is not useful. The landscape needs to be studied, the geological events need to be identified, and location of found nuggets needs to be considered. Only then can the buried gold be found by eliminating all the regions where it cannot be located. I'm attempting to do this but I find very little interest in this approach. Ed Storms On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- Regarding your comment copied from below--No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first place. --I agree. However, you seem to always take on a discussion to find the cause of the reaction considering basic physical parameters that you seem to recognize as real. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper As I have posted repeatedly, the key to developing an active and very strong reaction is to provide a wide range of micro/nanoparticle sizes. This requirement comes from nanoplasmonic doctrine. A single sized particle does not work. For example, in the open source high school reactor (cop = 4) that does work, the design calls for a tungsten particle collection of varying diameters. The 5 micron micro-particles coated with nanowire is important in feeding power into the aggregation of smaller nanoparticles. This is how Rossi’s secret sauce fits in. Potassium nanoparticles provide and intermediate sized particle population to the particle ensembles. Hydrogen provides the smallest particle population. When there are particles of varying size clump together, and alight on the nickel nanowires, strong dipole motion in the micro particles drive the reactions in the spaces between the hydrogen nanoparticles. The bigger particles act like step-up windings in a high voltage transformer as power is feed to the smallest particles. If a single diameter sized nanoparticle is used, the reaction will not work. If only nanoparticles are use in the reaction, the reaction will not be strong. On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. As is typical, the situation in the chemical structure is more complex than expected. No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first place. Ed Storms On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Wouldn't that lend itself to corroborating Ed Storms's theories about cracks the NAE? On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Frank roarty fr...@roarty.biz wrote: Jones, Yes, I agree.. the paper from Cornell re catalytic action only occurring at openings and defects in nano tubes
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
I can not go into detail Jones. I can say we subjected various sources of CNT to D2 at various temperatures and pressures and looked for heat and radiation. Unfortunately, LENR is so unreliable, no negative study can be considered the last word. We will not know what is possible or impossible until the correct explanation has been found. SPP may be present and important to some phenomenon, but they are very unlikely to have a role in initiating a nuclear reaction. Whatever causes LENR must be able to overcome a significant Coulomb barrier and at the same time dissipate MeV of energy. I see no way the SPP can do this. Ed Storms On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. Well, it is good to know that you and Chris collaborated, but not so good to learn that his technique may not work, as claimed. Can you describe what methods were used? Did you use a coherent or nearly coherent light source? Without a source of coherent light, SPP are unlikely to form. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. From what you say-- the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does not show how this can be done. Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is useless. I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to a philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a person how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and what would happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being explained might be real but they have no relationship to the original question. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I agree with Axil. I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don’t matter if they support the “crack topology”. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed Storms theory is inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard to chemistry. My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of development. You are invited to help this process. Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants of chemistry. Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the same way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with respect to LENR. Ed Storms Some background http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You said-- Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time. While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don’t matter if they support the “crack topology”. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed Storms theory is inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is lightning discharge, in volcanism, and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR reactions without any regard to chemistry. My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of development. You are invited to help this process. Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants of chemistry
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
If this huge energy is available, why does it only affect a nuclear process taking place in a chemical environment. Why does the energy not affect chemical reactions that can also occur in the material and require far less energy to initiate? I suggest you answer these questions clearly before proposing mechanisms that have no apparent support from observation. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy. This behavior results from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the chemical structure. 3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the free electrons to move in an effort to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the structure so as to reduce the gradient. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process. Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. Cracks are a topological mechanism. Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used don’t matter if they support the “crack topology”. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. Under there must be only one LENR cause constraint, Ed
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Hi Alain, Most of the present theories are focused on the lattice structure. A few people have suggested cracks as the location, but these ideas were not developed to show how this process might function or the resulting nuclear products. I attempted to put all the pieces together. A correct theory has to have all parts work together in a consistent and plausible way, which severely limits the possible combinations of ideas. As an engineer, I'm sure you can appreciate this requirement. In contrast, most theories are created by throwing together a collection of parts that look good but have no function in the machine. I have found the problem to be very difficult for some people to understand. I find that writing a book without the limitations imposted in papers is the only way my insights can be explained and hopefully understood. As a consequence, I'm focusing on this project rather than providing detail and repetition here. The NAE is a gap of a critical size. I make this statement without qualification. This has no relationship to any other concept. This is a crack, which is a well known and well understood flaw in materials. I suggest this flaw supports a nuclear process by the mechanism I have suggested. This proposal is clear and unambiguous. It is also totally consistent with what has been observed. I reject all other theories because they do not produce explanations that are consistent with what is observed. The other theoreticians pick and choose what is consistent and ignore the rest. I find this approach to be unsatisfying. However, it takes a book to show the conflicts. Right now, you have to take my word that such conflicts actually exist. Thanks for the comments. I hope I answered your question. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Dear Mr Storms I follow from far your discussion, and as a conservative engineer, with modest vision of QM (I see it more like a radio-guy, with quantum fields like EM-waves interacting, inside a lattice of antennas and wave guides, with some components) your approach match my way of mind. do you have a paper about your vision of what is the constraints on theories, from LENR experiments and old-fashioned validated QM? Your CF review in NWS (2010) does not cover much on theory (good idea I agree). it seems your vision of topological defects looks like the quantum dots in some semiconductors lasers, or the defects in gems which give color... what you say is that few thing can happen inside the complex chemistry solution, nor in the bulk... it have to be done inside a specific local component, stable and clean unlike solution or surface, localized unlike bulk... the NAE concept? do you see theories which agree with your vision. clearly not widom-larsen... does Takahashi-way seems possible for you? Kim-Zubarev? corrected to respect your p-e-p conclusion ? thanks in advance, and sorry for my naivety in QM. 2014-02-28 16:27 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Bob, of course these concepts apply in general. However, unless these concepts are applied in a way that explains the process, this statement is useless. I find that the discussion frequently drifts from talking about reality to a philosophical or poetic description of nature. This is like asking a person how to drive a car and being told all about special relativity and what would happen if the car reach the speed of light. The concepts being explained might be real but they have no relationship to the original question. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- I agree with Axil. I just wrote some other comments regarding this item. They basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Ed: Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Axil: No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil, I see our basic problem. We have an entirely different understanding of what the words used in this discussion mean and how the concepts are applied. For example, the Pauli Exclusion principle applies to electrons in energy states within atoms. The walls of cracks contain electrons that are not assigned to an atom. Therefore, the PEP does not apply. I do not explain because the concept is irrelevant in my model. Fractofusion demonstrates that high voltages, i.e. large electric fields can exist in a crack for a brief time. I'm simply using this observed behavior to initiate formation of the required structure in the crack. The Hydroton is a molecule consisting of hydrogen atoms held together by electrons to which the PEP applies. Once this structure forms, which is an exothermic reaction, the structure is able to initiate a nuclear reaction. This process has no relationship to the PEP. Rather than trying to find flaws, you might first want to correctly and fully understand what I propose. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to get closer than would be normally possible. The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a crack is very energy intensive. The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from crack packing. Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle can happen. This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition of COE. I happen to agree with you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of gas atoms but am quite willing to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me the money..I mean energy. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical squeezing of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without fermion exclusion imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale. On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is proposed to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR. You must not pretend that LENR, which is a nuclear process, can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs. The environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These limitations involve the chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. Ed Storms On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed: LENR is not a chemical process. What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR: Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the consequence of this flow. These conditions are: 1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole.
Fwd: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Begin forwarded message: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: February 27, 2014 2:15:33 PM MST To: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Bob, While what Axil describes are not unconventional theories in physics, they have no relationship to LENR. That is the problem in physics these days, any idea can be applied to LENR no matter how unrelated to reality it might be. The justification being that QM is a world unrelated to common logic or experience in which anything can be justified if the right formula is applied. To a large extent, this attitude is a self-serving way to avoid having to justify why the ideas make so sense outside of complex math. The situation in LENR is a good example. A collection of conflicting ad hoc assumptions are made and these are taken seriously by people in physics even when they lead to direct conflicts with experience, with basic laws of Nature, and even with each other. I'm of the opinion that physics needs some serious house cleaning, a process that is rejected just as new ways of thinking were rejected before QM was introduced. Physics, as well as all human activity, gradually gets corrupted by ad hoc assumption, poorly defined words, and concepts based on authority figures. As a result, the old needs to be periodically swept away with a fresh start. LENR has the potential to do this, but only if the old ideas are abandoned. I see no effort to do this in these discussions. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- Thanks.--I'll have some additional (later today)comments on the issue of increasing entropy in a quantum system, as well as, the energy levels and conservation of energy associated with nuclear reactions coupled via electromagnetic forces (considered for chemical reactions) to a quantum system consisting of molecules atoms, electrons, nuclei and the quarks that make up the nuclei--i.e., all the particles virtual and real-- that are known to exist per conventional thinking in physics. Many of the theories Axil had brought forth for information are not considered to be unconventional physics by most of the World. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: Bob Cook Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Bob, whatever happens in a chemical structure must be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and with the energy levels available in such a structure. Any condition able to initiate a nuclear reaction by overcoming the Coulomb barrier must apply energy that is not available and if made available would destroy the structure. These facts are a major source of conventional rejection of the claim. An explanation MUST find ways to avoid these limitations. This is possible, but not the way explanations are presently proposed. Because this argument is so far removed from conventional thinking in physics, a book is required to make the case, which I'm presently writing. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like
Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Bob, Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the chemical environment of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates nano-cracks or nano-voids as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then manifest. Regards, John On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed-- You stated-- If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. What limitations do you have in mind? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. Ed Storms On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole.
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
I have been following this discussion with interest because I bought a bitcoin. As best as I can tell, the personal wallet that contains my coin is located at and is under the control of an exchange, such as MtGov. This is no different from the money in my account at the bank. If the exchange goes bust, as apparently is happening with MtGov, I lose my coin. If the bank goes bust, I would lose my money unless the government steps in to replace it. In both cases, the money is in digital form and can be transferred using the computer. The only difference is that transfer of bitcoins is outside of the normal system. In addition, when I transfer a dollar, a dollar gets moved. When I transfer a bitcoin, the dollar amount is variable depend on which day I make the transfer. As for a EMP event, that would wipe out the money in my bank because all record of its existence would be lost, unless the paper record was accepted. Of course, I have a paper record of my bitcoin as well, which may or may not be accepted. So, as for safety of money, it seems we are at the mercy of the location where the money is stored. That is why the mattress is looking better all the time. Ed Storms On Feb 26, 2014, at 9:41 AM, James Bowery wrote: Alain, what you are talking about are what I previously called the exchange layer of cryptocurrency infrastructure. That layer of the infrastructure is not necessary. Cryptocurrency differs from gold in that the safest place to keep it is not in a central location but in your own electronic wallet which is part of the highy vetted electronic-wire/public ledger infrastructure. Yes there are, and always will be, a lot of people offering financial services of all kinds -- what I'm subsuming under my term exchanges -- and I expect as things progress much of this infrastructure will be absorbed by the current financial institutions that offer services of proven value. But the basis is actually better than gold in the absence of an EMP event. On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: many interesting points. Bitcoin interesrt beside being anonymous like coins and bills. Some people like libertarians and gold lovers loke bitcoins because they think the quantity of physicical bitcons, like gold (but more predictably than gold) cannot be fudged by central banks. In fact it is false, like for gold. like there is tons of paper-gold, ther will be (or there is) ton sof paper-bitcoind... banks can invent bitcoins by makein loans (the basic of monetary creation).. in some US prisons, since cigarettes get banned, the currency is fishcans... using shells is no better than gold, bitcoins, or banknotes... as soon at it is trusted, some actor may make loan, based on deposits, or sell insurance contractes (derivated products)... best way is to understand what is finance, and prevent too-big-to-fail, and people with no flesh in the game... 2014-02-26 7:58 GMT+01:00 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com: It is not possible. Bitcoin network itself is not hackable as credit cards are. The vulnerabilities are in centralized places like exchanges that do not take precautions to protect customers accounts (as cold wallets). A network is very resistant to attacks like this. Look what is happening to Bitcoin, even a disastrous event like what happened with MtGox created some turmoil but not the end of Bitcoin. In fact price is bouncing back. Bitcoin is going to be the future of money. On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Bitcoin will be 1 Million dollars by 2019. Until a 16-year-old Russian Hacker gets into the bank, the way one got into the Target credit files. A week after that, the Bitcoin will be worth $14.38. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing
OK Craig, if the bitcoin can be stored in a person's computer, why are people upset that they lost money from MtGov. How is that loss possible? Did they fail to transfer the coin to themselves? In any case, for me to sell my coin, I need an exchange that has money and access to my bank account. Are you saying that I can give any of the exchanges my private key and have them convert the bitcoin into money that appears in my bank account? Ed On Feb 26, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Craig wrote: So, as for safety of money, it seems we are at the mercy of the location where the money is stored. That is why the mattress is looking better all the time. Because Bitcoin is digital, you can also store your bitcoins on your personal computer, or print out your private key and store it in a filing cabinet. No need to keep it in an exchange. Craig On 02/26/2014 12:01 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: I have been following this discussion with interest because I bought a bitcoin. As best as I can tell, the personal wallet that contains my coin is located at and is under the control of an exchange, such as MtGov. This is no different from the money in my account at the bank. If the exchange goes bust, as apparently is happening with MtGov, I lose my coin. If the bank goes bust, I would lose my money unless the government steps in to replace it. In both cases, the money is in digital form and can be transferred using the computer. The only difference is that transfer of bitcoins is outside of the normal system. In addition, when I transfer a dollar, a dollar gets moved. When I transfer a bitcoin, the dollar amount is variable depend on which day I make the transfer. As for a EMP event, that would wipe out the money in my bank because all record of its existence would be lost, unless the paper record was accepted. Of course, I have a paper record of my bitcoin as well, which may or may not be accepted. So, as for safety of money, it seems we are at the mercy of the location where the money is stored. That is why the mattress is looking better all the time. Ed Storms On Feb 26, 2014, at 9:41 AM, James Bowery wrote: Alain, what you are talking about are what I previously called the exchange layer of cryptocurrency infrastructure. That layer of the infrastructure is not necessary. Cryptocurrency differs from gold in that the safest place to keep it is not in a central location but in your own electronic wallet which is part of the highy vetted electronic-wire/public ledger infrastructure. Yes there are, and always will be, a lot of people offering financial services of all kinds -- what I'm subsuming under my term exchanges -- and I expect as things progress much of this infrastructure will be absorbed by the current financial institutions that offer services of proven value. But the basis is actually better than gold in the absence of an EMP event. On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: many interesting points. Bitcoin interesrt beside being anonymous like coins and bills. Some people like libertarians and gold lovers loke bitcoins because they think the quantity of physicical bitcons, like gold (but more predictably than gold) cannot be fudged by central banks. In fact it is false, like for gold. like there is tons of paper-gold, ther will be (or there is) ton sof paper-bitcoind... banks can invent bitcoins by makein loans (the basic of monetary creation).. in some US prisons, since cigarettes get banned, the currency is fishcans... using shells is no better than gold, bitcoins, or banknotes... as soon at it is trusted, some actor may make loan, based on deposits, or sell insurance contractes (derivated products)... best way is to understand what is finance, and prevent too-big-to-fail, and people with no flesh in the game... 2014-02-26 7:58 GMT+01:00 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com: It is not possible. Bitcoin network itself is not hackable as credit cards are. The vulnerabilities are in centralized places like exchanges that do not take precautions to protect customers accounts (as cold wallets). A network is very resistant to attacks like this. Look what is happening to Bitcoin, even a disastrous event like what happened with MtGox created some turmoil but not the end of Bitcoin. In fact price is bouncing back. Bitcoin is going to be the future of money. On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Bitcoin will be 1 Million dollars by 2019
Re: [Vo]:Re: Is there an echo in here?
I do not understand this argument for an unlimited amount of money. Gold can be given any value in dollars , hence the amount available in physical form can be given as much buying power you want without changing the amount of physical gold. Right now the price is held at artificial low levels compared to the demand, especially from China. This is done by creating paper gold that takes the place of real gold. That process has a limited lifetime that will end badly. The bitcoin can be subdivided to any small amount such that if 1 bitcoin has to be equal to 1M$ to be useful in trade, a dollar would be equal to 0.01 bitcoins, which would buy just as much as would one bit coin if it were = 1$. The US government is creating money to fill the debt hole created by the banks so that they can avoid going bankrupt based on the present rules and so that the government can continue to spend without balancing the books. Having gold or bitcoins as a standard would place a limit on how much of this artificial wealth could be created. According to my understanding, an unsustainable situation is being created that will only end badly. Ed Storms On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed-- What about gold? That's a complicated subject! First, gold has considerable intrinsic value, for electronics, fillings and other medical uses, and so on, plus aesthetic value in jewelry. Second, in ancient times gold was an excellent means of exchange because amounts were limited by mining technology, and because it could not be faked. You can test for gold by primitive methods. You can measure gold density with Archimedes' principle, which was invented for that very purpose. Nowadays, I believe most economists consider the gold standard barbaric. I do not know enough about economics to comment in detail, but their arguments make sense to me. See, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/opinion/krugman-bits-and-barbarism.html The section from General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, by Keynes that Krugman refers to is copied below. It is amusing. Keynes sure knew how to write. Let me add something from my point of view, which is that of a man who has only a hammer to whom all problems look like nails. I see this and most other issues in terms of technology. It is said that gold is available in limited amounts. This will supposedly prevent inflation, which is why goldbugs who do not trust the government are enamored of gold. Unfortunately the gold standard also limits the money supply which means the economy cannot expand. More to the point, nowadays, I doubt that the amount of gold is really all that limited. Suppose we had some desperate need to get lots of gold, say, to keep the sun from exploding (somehow). I'm pretty sure we could find lots more. Gold is available at very low concentrate in the ocean, but there are probably millions of tons and we could find a way to filter the water. It is probably available elsewhere in the solar system. If that does not work out, I expect we could find a way to transmute other elements into gold in industrial quantities. If we really needed to, we could find a way to get so much gold we could pave the roads with it. As Arthur Clarke said, the only resource that is truly in short supply is brains. With enough intelligence and science, you can have anything you want, in unlimited quantities. Here is the text from Keynes: It is curious how common sense, wriggling for an escape from absurd conclusions, has been apt to reach a preference for wholly 'wasteful' forms of loan expenditure rather than for partly wasteful forms, which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict 'business' principles. For example, unemployment relief financed by loans is more readily accepted than the financing of improvements at a charge below the current rate of interest; whilst the form of digging holes in the ground known as gold-mining, which not only adds nothing whatever to the real wealth of the world but involves the disutility of labour, is the most acceptable of all solutions. If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Sent from my iPad On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:31 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: about tritium, and NiH, in your vision, does this mean some d+e+p, or d+e+d happen like p+e+p depending on the available reactant (and I imagine the geometric structure of the fields around). the fact that d and p have different mass, make the reaction p+e+d very different from p+e+p or d+e+d, more asymetrical... maybe it is more collective to make it symmetrical again? Yes Alain, that is my claim. I assume that all hydrogen isotopes experience the same mechanism. How this happens is a different issue. I remember that some tritium experiments show that maximum tritium was produced with 50%D 50%H... in that vision NiH reactors would produce D, then some T (anv much less He4) after some time if the fuel is much consumed. That is true. This observation has now been replicated. by the way, why is p+p impossible ? too much energy needed ? even in collective context (hard to imagine MeV piled upon thousands of coherent p) p-p is not possible using LENR because too much energy is required to get over the barrier and the expected products are not observed. The idea that gamma or neutrons cannot be filtered at 10^-6 whatever is the mechanism is anyway a strong point... I feel now that it cannot be produced. Neutrons can not be easily removed but neutrons are not produced. The weak photon s that are detected can be easily removed by the walls of the apparatus. People need to read what is know to occur rather than speculate from ignorance. the way the reaction behave in lattice, near the surface, in abnormal places (vacancies, cracks, nanostructures) say geometry and electronic field geometry are important... There is something about interference... I have no idea what interference means. Ed Storms 2014-02-14 1:23 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: H Veeder (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Bob, these three particles create a deuteron after all of the excess mass energy has been emitted as photons. The neutrino has very little energy because very little remains when the d forms. The creation process is unique to lenr and applies to all the isotopes of hydrogen, at least that is my model. if lenr is to be explained, you need to stop thinking in conventional terms. This is a new kind of nuclear process. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:00 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones--Bob Cook Here-- Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin? I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 1/2 or 3/2 spin--I do not know. If a positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think. That would make the new particle have 0 or 1 spin. The reaction of the positron and electron give photons with 0 spin. Bob . -Original Message- From: Jones Beene tt Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. Hi, Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: H Veeder (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first – even if the deuteron, the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! Let’s get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for adequately explaining the Rossi effect.
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: H Veeder (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first – even if the deuteron, the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. People who
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Axil, tritium has been made using H2O, which is close enough. Tritium has been made in the absence of lithium. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: H Veeder (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
Jed, you probably know that to fix a line the power to the entire line has to be turned off. That would turn off power to many more people than initially. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2014, at 8:44 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The Georgia Power outage map is interesting. It shows the number of customers affected increased from 77,132 at 9:45 to 97,450 at 10:15. There are now 940 outages. Individual outages are not being cleared very quickly. One at Timberland drive has been listed since this morning. It is affecting more people than before, now at 842 customers. I guess this illustrates the limits of parallel efforts to maintain a network. I mean that it a work crew a certain amount of time to cut branches and repair fallen power lines. It takes as long as it does, and having hundreds of other work crews standing by does not make it go any faster. I expect they still have spare work crews standing by, because the news showed hundreds of trucks coming in from out of state yesterday, and because 940 outages affecting 97,000 customers is not a lot for an area as large as this, with a population as high as this. At 10:25 the number of outages has risen to 995 affecting 97,683. I don't see any of the local ones cleared. That is not suggest the power company crews are not working hard. Oops! My power just dropped for a second. Back on. This is eerie, watching the network fail in real time. So far this storm is not a big deal. I have seen much worse ice storms in Atlanta. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles
Axil, I hope you realize the Hydroton, which I propose allows the fusion reaction to take place and dissipates the energy, involves resonance of electrons coupled to hydrogen atoms. I'm describing the structure in which the polariton would operate. So far you have not supplied this essential feature in your concept. No matter which mechanism is proposed, it MUST operate in a collection of hydrogen nuclei that form by normal chemical processes. That structure is the Hydroton. Once this structure is identified, several consequences result and many behaviors can be explained. You might consider how your idea relates the entire mechanism I propose. Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:50 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Fusion by Pseudo-Particles Part 1 Past, Present and Future http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf I have come across a fellow traveler who can express the truth about the central role of the polariton in LENR and understands why this fact is so.
Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles
On Feb 10, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Thanks Ed My concept of the LENR reaction is a passive one. Yours is a more active one. Axil, I would say your concept uses one aspect of a theoretical concept while my concept involves the entire LENR process. According to my current way of thinking, dipole vibration maintains the separation of electron and proton in hydrogen. This happens in a chemical system, not in plasma where your concept would apply. Any separation of charge must take into account the surrounding electrons and atoms. A vibration has to take place in a local region having no connection to the chemical structure. That is the role of the Hydroton. Where is your hydroton? These separated electrons are then sequestered and redirected into the NAE (aka soliton) by topological discontinuity in the lattice and become part of the polariton ensemble inside the NAE. I have no idea what this means and how it can happen. We know electrons can be separated from the atoms and can result in an electric current when voltage is applied. Where is the applied voltage in your case? What drives the charge separation, which requires energy? Where does the voltage gradient come from that is required to move the electrons? Without such answers, this description is just hand-waving. The naked protons are then acted upon by the EMF based charge screening effects of the NAE. With their coulomb repulsion completely removed, these protons become attractive to each other and pair up based on their opposing spins to form cooper pairs. Cooper pairs are known to form only at low temperature because they are very unstable. In addition, you are applying a concept used to describe electrons in superconductors to protons. What justification do you have for such a structure to form between protons at room temperature and above? How does a copper pair of p differ from H2? The next step is a group fusion process where these multiple cooper pairs of protons fuse with a high Z element in a group fusion process in a zone of almost complete charge screening. This makes no sense. I have no idea what you are describing here. For example, 8 protons (4 cooper pairs) might fuse with a nickel atom to produce multiple light elements which might include multiple helium atoms. I suggest you go the next step and calculate the elements formed, their decay modes, and whether the reaction is exothermic. And then see if the consequence is consistent with what is observed. Simply making unsupported imagined statements without going the next step is not very useful. The charge screening comes from the NAE. The ions that are to be fused are all very close by the soliton and located in the solid boundaries of the lattice defect. The very strong magnetic field coming from the NAE is the coulomb barrier screening field. This magnetic field shines brightly on the solid boundaries of the NAE where complete screening of the coulomb barrier occurs. I have no idea how a magnetic field shines on a boundary. This combination of words makes no sense to me. Ed Storms On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, I hope you realize the Hydroton, which I propose allows the fusion reaction to take place and dissipates the energy, involves resonance of electrons coupled to hydrogen atoms. I'm describing the structure in which the polariton would operate. So far you have not supplied this essential feature in your concept. No matter which mechanism is proposed, it MUST operate in a collection of hydrogen nuclei that form by normal chemical processes. That structure is the Hydroton. Once this structure is identified, several consequences result and many behaviors can be explained. You might consider how your idea relates the entire mechanism I propose. Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:50 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Fusion by Pseudo-Particles Part 1 Past, Present and Future http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf I have come across a fellow traveler who can express the truth about the central role of the polariton in LENR and understands why this fact is so.
Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles
+ 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Ed states: I have no idea how a magnetic field shines on a boundary. This combination of words makes no sense to me. Axil: A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, they don’t exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. As best as I can tell, this description is based only on theory. We know that photons interact with electrons but just how this is done and the results are pure theory. You then assume that gamma rays can follow magnetic field lines, which is news to anyone who has studied gamma rays. LENR is obviously a new phenomenon. However, how gamma rays behave is not knew. Also, how magnetic fields behave is not new. Proposing behavior about gamma rays and magnetic fields that are way outside of experience does not help explain LENR. This is like explaining one mystery by another mystery until the explanation gets more unbelievable in proportion to the mystery squared. LENR can be explained using known behavior up to a certain critical point. That point needs to be clearly identified, which I have attempted to do. Once that point is identified, the new possibilities are very limited. Until this concept is accepted, discussions about hypothetical processes will make no progress and reach no agreement. People need to stop throwing the clay against the wall, agree on what a pot needs to look like, and get to work making the design. Ed Storms I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get huge. The spin of the polariton produces the magnetic field in the same way that an iron magnet produces a magnetic field; that is through spin alignment except that it has only one pole. Charge movement does not produce a current. The magnetic field projects out of a polariton ring normal to it in one direction or the opposite direction depending on the spin orientation of the polariton.. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 10, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Thanks Ed My concept of the LENR reaction is a passive one. Yours is a more active one. Axil, I would say your concept uses one aspect of a theoretical concept while my concept involves the entire LENR process. According to my current way of thinking, dipole vibration maintains the separation of electron and proton in hydrogen. This happens in a chemical system, not in plasma where your concept would apply. Any separation of charge must take into account the surrounding electrons and atoms. A vibration has to take place in a local region having no connection to the chemical structure. That is the role of the Hydroton. Where is your hydroton? These separated electrons are then sequestered and redirected into the NAE (aka soliton) by topological discontinuity in the lattice and become part of the polariton ensemble inside the NAE. I have no idea what this means and how it can happen. We know electrons can be separated from the atoms and can result in an electric current when voltage is applied. Where is the applied voltage in your case? What drives the charge separation, which requires energy? Where does the voltage gradient come from that is required to move the electrons? Without such answers, this description is just hand-waving. The naked protons are then acted upon by the EMF based charge screening effects of the NAE. With their coulomb repulsion completely removed, these protons become attractive to each other and pair up based on their opposing spins to form cooper pairs. Cooper pairs are known to form only at low temperature because they are very unstable. In addition, you are applying a concept used to describe electrons in superconductors to protons. What justification do you have for such a structure to form between protons at room temperature and above
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information about how LENR works. So far, this approach is not bring used effectively. All present explanations can be shown not to explain the process. A person can disagree about what kind of explanation might be correct, but the present explanations are clearly wrong. Until this situation changes, I believe investment in a device will produce very little of value. We are like a person in 1800 being shown a smart phone and being asked to make another one. You can imagine all the explanations of how it worked that would be discussed, with none of them being even close to the correct one. That is the situation now in LENR. People have no idea how it works, yet they are certain they have a correct understanding. This is like trying to design heavier than air flight before the Wright Brothers or a durable light bulb before Edison. Why not invest in getting knowledge? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of Jet Energy and test that. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If someone asked me what kind of research can I do with $50,000? I would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. ***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in correspondence with the X-Prize committee, proposing a LENR replication prize for Techshop and following the MFMP recipe. I think that with a techshop, $100k, and some guidance, someone with as pedestrian an intellect such as mine could replicate those Gamma rays. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it. Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he be crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it? I would find out. People such as Ed Storms and McKubre would find out. It is a small world. People are not going to do research without word getting out. I may not know where the money is coming from, but if someone starts spending millions per year on cold fusion, they will have to hire grad students and consult with people, and word will get out. If you are a billionaire but you are only going to spend tens of thousands instead of millions, I might not hear about it. An investor who does not spend millions is wasting his money. If we could get somewhere with shoestring budgets, we would have made progress years ago. If someone asked me what kind of research can I do with $50,000? I would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this is a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in the field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People simply go their own way regardless of the obvious problems and conflicts with reality. Many people, including myself, have made the effect work and reported the results. In addition, several of us have published attempts at an explanation. So Swartz is not unique. The question is, Is his understanding correct? As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you decide? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and frankly, way beyond my understanding. But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting massive investment and recognition from labs everywhere.Once billion dollar labs take it seriously, that's when you will see the technology advance very dramatically. I believe Swartz is trying to do exactly that with Nanor, and he's doing it in an open, transparent way. This is exactly the mature, scientific, selfless approach I've been waiting for. In my opinion, it could turn out to be the great reflection point in LENR. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information about how LENR works. So far, this approach is not bring used effectively. All present explanations can be shown not to explain the process. A person can disagree about what kind of explanation might be correct, but the present explanations are clearly wrong. Until this situation changes, I believe investment in a device will produce very little of value. We are like a person in 1800 being shown a smart phone and being asked to make another one. You can imagine all the explanations of how it worked that would be discussed, with none of them being even close to the correct one. That is the situation now in LENR. People have no idea how it works, yet they are certain they have a correct understanding. This is like trying to design heavier than air flight before the Wright Brothers or a durable light bulb before Edison. Why not invest in getting knowledge? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of Jet Energy and test that. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If someone asked me what kind of research can I do with $50,000? I would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. ***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in correspondence with the X-Prize committee, proposing a LENR replication prize for Techshop and following the MFMP recipe. I think that with a techshop, $100k, and some guidance, someone with as pedestrian an intellect such as mine could replicate those Gamma rays. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it. Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he be crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it? I would find out. People such as Ed Storms and McKubre would find out. It is a small world. People are not going to do research without word getting out. I may not know where the money is coming from, but if someone starts spending millions per year on cold fusion, they will have to hire grad students and consult with people, and word will get out. If you are a billionaire but you are only going to spend tens of thousands instead of millions, I might not hear about it. An investor who does not spend millions is wasting his money. If we could get somewhere with shoestring budgets, we would have made progress years ago. If someone asked me what kind of research can I do with $50,000? I would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce experimental results without theoretical understanding. I'm not sure that thesis is correct. ] No that is NOT what I said. I said that successful application reqires knowledge about the basic process. This is required to amplify the process and control power production, as well as to satisfy the regulars. Hundreds of experimental results have been produced without this knowledge, largely by chance. That is why the effect is so hard to replicate. Ed Storms On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this is a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in the field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People simply go their own way regardless of the obvious problems and conflicts with reality. Many people, including myself, have made the effect work and reported the results. In addition, several of us have published attempts at an explanation. So Swartz is not unique. The question is, Is his understanding correct? As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you decide? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and frankly, way beyond my understanding. But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting massive investment and recognition from labs everywhere.Once billion dollar labs take it seriously, that's when you will see the technology advance very dramatically. I believe Swartz is trying to do exactly that with Nanor, and he's doing it in an open, transparent way. This is exactly the mature, scientific, selfless approach I've been waiting for. In my opinion, it could turn out to be the great reflection point in LENR. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information about how LENR works. So far, this approach is not bring used effectively. All present explanations can be shown not to explain the process. A person can disagree about what kind of explanation might be correct, but the present explanations are clearly wrong. Until this situation changes, I believe investment in a device will produce very little of value. We are like a person in 1800 being shown a smart phone and being asked to make another one. You can imagine all the explanations of how it worked that would be discussed, with none of them being even close to the correct one. That is the situation now in LENR. People have no idea how it works, yet they are certain they have a correct understanding. This is like trying to design heavier than air flight before the Wright Brothers or a durable light bulb before Edison. Why not invest in getting knowledge? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of Jet Energy and test that. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If someone asked me what kind of research can I do with $50,000? I would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. ***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in correspondence with the X-Prize committee, proposing a LENR replication prize for Techshop and following the MFMP recipe. I think that with a techshop, $100k, and some guidance, someone with as pedestrian an intellect such as mine could replicate those Gamma rays. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it. Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he be crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it? I would find out. People such as Ed Storms and McKubre would find out. It is a small world. People are not going to do research without word getting out. I may not know where the money is coming from, but if someone starts spending millions per year on cold fusion, they will have to hire grad students and consult with people, and word will get out. If you are a billionaire but you are only going to spend tens of thousands instead of millions, I might not hear about it. An investor who
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Blaze, why do you keep jumping to conclusions having no relationship to what I say? I did not say Swartz does not know how to measure energy. I have no doubt he can make the effect work. I question whether he understands HOW it works, not THAT it works. Do you understand the difference? On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: So your premise then that not only is his theoretical understanding wrong, but he doesn't know how to measure energy / heat as well? From what I can see: an MIT professor is vouching for Swartz by association This is not a reason to believe Swartz knows how LENR works. Peter's theory has some serious flaws that he has yet to address. Swartz has optimized his nanor device to produce consistent, high lenr+ cop That is news to me. What is the COP and what conditions is the value based on? Swartz is going to make these (simple) devices widely available for anyone to reverse engineer replicate his results I would like to get one. Can you arrange this? If he's incompetent to the point he can't even correctly measure such massive COP, then yes, you're right. Is that what you're saying? Again, you make an assumption that is not correct. Otherwise, when labs such as MFMP get this and reproduce what he has, I think we will see something hugely dramatic in terms of global interest Yes, a lot of global interest has been generated, especially by Rossi. This does not generate understanding unless money is used to get this understanding. Basic scientific study is very different from improving the engineering design of a device. Who else is trying to do that? Who else has that level of credibility? Are you trying to produce something that can be widely replicated? Claytor has made tritium for years, showing that LENR is occurring without question. No one paid any attention. Energetics has a method that is reproducible. Of course, Rossi has the gold star. This does not provide any information about how the effect works. If you are doing this, I will happily donate to MFMP to buy your device assuming it's optimized for wide replication in the way that Nanor is. I'm not trying to optimize a device. I'm trying to understand how the effect works under any and all conditions. Not only am I optimistic about Nanor, I believe this model of scientific sharing (producing a device like Nanor) is precisely what LENR+ needs. Yes, a working device is needed to support studies of its behavior. However, such studies require money, much more than the cost of the device. Such studies also require skill and knowledge. Where do you plan to get money and the people to make such studies? MEMF is only a testing laboratory. They are not equipped to do basic studies. I can see that this basic idea is hard for you to understand, Blaze. Until people with money understand this basic requirement, I expect LENR will make very little progress and will suffer setbacks when the generators fail. Ed Storms On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce experimental results without theoretical understanding. I'm not sure that thesis is correct. ] No that is NOT what I said. I said that successful application reqires knowledge about the basic process. This is required to amplify the process and control power production, as well as to satisfy the regulars. Hundreds of experimental results have been produced without this knowledge, largely by chance. That is why the effect is so hard to replicate. Ed Storms On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this is a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in the field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People simply go their own way regardless of the obvious problems and conflicts with reality. Many people, including myself, have made the effect work and reported the results. In addition, several of us have published attempts at an explanation. So Swartz is not unique. The question is, Is his understanding correct? As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you decide? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and frankly, way beyond my understanding. But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting massive investment and recognition from labs everywhere.Once billion dollar labs take it seriously, that's when you will see the technology advance very dramatically. I believe Swartz is trying to do exactly that with Nanor, and he's doing
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
James, you describe the basic problem very well. In addition, the idea of basic science has a bad rap in the US because it is called playing in the sand box. This kind of study was once done by graduate students or in government laboratories, but this source is now very much diminished. For LENR, the source is invisible for the reasons you describe. Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:14 PM, James Bowery wrote: I've noticed a pathology in this discourse that boils down to a conflation, hence confusion, of research with development. This conflation has two main historic sources: 1) Government funded technology development often times will conflate research with development because there is a lot more money in development than in research. A good example is the Tokamak program which is viewed as an RD program, but the real purpose of the program is cash flow. 2) The cold fusion fiasco of the century has resulted in such a vicious attack on research that the ordinary product of research -- which is pursuit of reproducible experiments -- has been driven underground so deeply that the only hope many have salvaging research is someone like Rossi coming out with a commercial product. This is to answer the I'll believe it when I can mentality explicitly stated by scientific authorities. Both of the above conflations of R with D are tragic. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce experimental results without theoretical understanding. I'm not sure that thesis is correct. ] No that is NOT what I said. I said that successful application reqires knowledge about the basic process. This is required to amplify the process and control power production, as well as to satisfy the regulars. Hundreds of experimental results have been produced without this knowledge, largely by chance. That is why the effect is so hard to replicate. Ed Storms On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this is a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in the field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People simply go their own way regardless of the obvious problems and conflicts with reality. Many people, including myself, have made the effect work and reported the results. In addition, several of us have published attempts at an explanation. So Swartz is not unique. The question is, Is his understanding correct? As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you decide? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and frankly, way beyond my understanding. But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting massive investment and recognition from labs everywhere.Once billion dollar labs take it seriously, that's when you will see the technology advance very dramatically. I believe Swartz is trying to do exactly that with Nanor, and he's doing it in an open, transparent way. This is exactly the mature, scientific, selfless approach I've been waiting for. In my opinion, it could turn out to be the great reflection point in LENR. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information about how LENR works. So far, this approach is not bring used effectively. All present explanations can be shown not to explain the process. A person can disagree about what kind of explanation might be correct, but the present explanations are clearly wrong. Until this situation changes, I believe investment in a device will produce very little of value. We are like a person in 1800 being shown a smart phone and being asked to make another one. You can imagine all the explanations of how it worked that would be discussed, with none of them being even close to the correct one. That is the situation now in LENR. People have no idea how it works, yet they are certain they have a correct understanding. This is like trying to design heavier than air flight before the Wright Brothers or a durable light bulb before Edison. Why not invest in getting knowledge? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of Jet Energy and test that. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: So Swartz is not unique. The question is, Is his understanding correct? As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you decide? ***The same way that Science has decided for centuries. Your theory has implications, so do others. We test according to those implications. I've seen Jones Beene post that the presence of nuclear ash will be devastating to Mills's theory. What would be CONFIRMAtion of his theory? Similarly with yours, what would be devastating, what would be confirmatory? Do those tests. Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires money. If the tests show the theory is correct, then more money is required to amplify understanding. No one has the money to make the tests. So, I compare my model and all other models to all past studies and to what is known in physics and chemistry. The question then is which model can explain, without additional ad hoc assumption, the most behaviors without conflict with what is known? My model does this the best. Many models can be eliminated because they conflict with what is well known in science. The person who has had the most time on point with working reactors is Rossi. He's had the chance to test various implications and theories. He said to Krivit that it seemed like electron capture (maybe proton capture) was the best theoretical approach so far, not Weak Nuclear Force. It was at that point that Krivit started calling Rossi a fraud. Yes, this explanation has no future. You will have to read my book to know why because the explanation requires to much time to provide here. Ed Storms On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this is a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in the field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People simply go their own way regardless of the obvious problems and conflicts with reality. Many people, including myself, have made the effect work and reported the results. In addition, several of us have published attempts at an explanation. So Swartz is not unique. The question is, Is his understanding correct? As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you decide? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and frankly, way beyond my understanding. But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting massive investment and recognition from labs everywhere.Once billion dollar labs take it seriously, that's when you will see the technology advance very dramatically. I believe Swartz is trying to do exactly that with Nanor, and he's doing it in an open, transparent way. This is exactly the mature, scientific, selfless approach I've been waiting for. In my opinion, it could turn out to be the great reflection point in LENR. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information about how LENR works. So far, this approach is not bring used effectively. All present explanations can be shown not to explain the process. A person can disagree about what kind of explanation might be correct, but the present explanations are clearly wrong. Until this situation changes, I believe investment in a device will produce very little of value. We are like a person in 1800 being shown a smart phone and being asked to make another one. You can imagine all the explanations of how it worked that would be discussed, with none of them being even close to the correct one. That is the situation now in LENR. People have no idea how it works, yet they are certain they have a correct understanding. This is like trying to design heavier than air flight before the Wright Brothers or a durable light bulb before Edison. Why not invest in getting knowledge? Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of Jet Energy and test that. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If someone asked me what kind of research can I do with $50,000? I would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. ***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in correspondence with the X
