The problem, Bob, in applying any mechanism to the lattice, as you
have done, is that it would affect chemical processes long before it
could cause any interaction with a nucleus. As is well known, the
chemical and nuclear worlds are very far apart in energy and in any
observed
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
In addition, the behavior of helium and tritium show that they are made
very near the surface and not in the bulk. These issues have been well
discussed.
To elaborate, the conclusion that Pd/D LENR is a surface effect
I wrote:
2. There have been several high-profile Pd/D experiments that have proposed
a correlation of 4He off-gas production on the order of the heat observed
-- somewhere near 24 MeV per palladium atom, although the precise value is
in dispute.
Correction -- the value (which is disputed)
Thanks Ed for this quick compilation of the facts to consider. It is helpful
to focus upon the observations that drive any new theories.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: cmns c...@googlegroups.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
I would question assumption #5
5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated
With start up times measured in days...I don't think you can say that, ie a
random cosmic ray,
or stray energy from anywhere. could kick it off
I would also question the complete rejection of
Before I comment, I should caution that I am only an EE and not a trained
nuclear physicist or chemist. It is only natural for me to try to
understand behavior in more familiar, EE terms.
I would not like to offer an explanation so much as a mental
rationalization that I have constructed to help
Do you think that a random comic ray would start a process at one
single site in a material that causes steady release of watts of
power? Cosmic rays do not even initiate chemical reactions. For
example TNT is completely stable in spite of being bombarded
continuously. Of course,
I'm not saying that external energy is required, only that setting that as
a unconditional unquestioned principal upon which one is going to
accept or reject theories seems weak, especially because we know that in
some cases the addition of energy accelerates the process.
If one accepts Defklions
*Suppose the NAE is a resonance of some kind*
* *
*A very high Q perfect resonant structure of exactly the right size will
start or run with just minor thermal excitation...*
* *
*and be maintained by the coupling from the effect it creates.*
Look into the Fano resonance of electrons in
Paul, we have to start somewhere with some assumptions. ALL theories
are based on assumptions, some less plausible than others. These are
the assumptions I start with. They are plausible and allow the options
for a model to be reduced to useful numbers.
On Feb 22, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Paul
The fusion process has a beginning and an ending. It is not continuous.
Once the He forms, the reaction must stop until the He leaves the site and
more D takes its place.
Has anyone melted a working cathode to see if it contains any trapped He?
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its
-
From: Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
The fusion process has a beginning and an ending. It is not continuous. Once
the He forms, the reaction must stop until the He leaves the site and more D
takes
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk
effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape
to the surface?
***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen at the
surface. Like a landslide pushing a hundred trees into a
to understand all
that has been discovered and observed. I spent 23 years doing this, so
my model is not based on casual ideas.
Ed
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk
effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to
the surface?
***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen at the
surface. Like
-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a
bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving
: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a
bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a
way to escape to the surface?
***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen
at the surface. Like
*New Findings from Rice University in the Area of Nanotechnology Published*
*October 1st, 2012*
2012 OCT 1 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at
Nanotechnology Weekly -- Investigators discuss new findings in
Nanotechnology. According to news originating from Houston, Texas,
The question of whether or not this is a bulk effect can be addressed by
using a very thin plating of active material. If the reaction is similar
with the thin film that you get with a larger bulk, or perhaps even a
thicker plating, then it is surface related. I assume that there is
adequate
From what I can read in these figures, the electric field enhancemnt ranges
to 300 fold
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121024/srep00764/full/srep00764.html#/f4
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
*New Findings from Rice University in the Area of
theory.
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: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You pose
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You pose an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads
to an increase in the number of NAE
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a
bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to
escape to the surface?
***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence
: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to determine the
magnitude of the source of energy? I realize that he saw individual flashes,
but how powerful was each one? Is it possible to prove
.
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: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, When Szpak observed
away thermal events that we might
want to explore?
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: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 11:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Well Dave, your
@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to determine
the magnitude of the source of energy? I
27 matches
Mail list logo
