Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 interaction. Only the very rare and unidentified conditions required to initiate LENR provide an exception. Atoms are known to resonate and QM has been applied successfully to explain many behaviors. However, all the behaviors involve the electrons at low energy typical of and consistent with a chemical environment. Moving from this condition to what might affect nuclear interaction without out affecting chemical behavior is the problem. The more I study the problem, the harder the problem gets to find a satisfactory explanation. A critical insight is missing. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: 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 me understand what is being reported. Dr. Peter Hagelstein (MIT) has a theory and simulation about the effect of coupling of the deuteron(s) in the lattice to the other surrounding atoms in the lattice. We all know each of the atoms in solid condensed matter is highly coupled to its neighboring atoms by the shared electron orbitals. This is strong coupling - it is what makes a solid. I also know from my RF training about he behavior of coupled resonant structures. Take a single resonant structure having a single resonant frequency. It has a single eigenmode (resonance). Now take an identical resonant element and bring it into coupling with the first. What happens is that the eigenmode of each splits into two eigenmodes geometrically centered on the original eigenmode. If there are 3 coupled resonators, then EACH resonator will have 3 eigenmodes. Even weak coupling cause the multiple eigenmodes, but they may be close to each other. Now consider that each atom in a lattice is a resonant element that is coupled to all of the other surrounding atoms in the lattice - strongly coupled to the close ones, and weakly coupled to the more distant atoms. Also imagine that the nucleus is a resonant structure (vibrational, rotational, and maybe in other dimensions) and is coupled to the electron cloud and hence to all of the other neighboring atoms and their nuclei. This would mean that the nucleus itself could now have multiple eigenmodes through its coupling to the neighboring atoms - something that would really only occur in condensed matter. One way these nuclear eigenmodes could be visualized may be in terms of formation of shallow isomeric stabilities in the nucleus. Could then, transitions between the multiple shallow isomeric stabilities be equivalent in some way to the eigenmodes of the electron cloud and allow transitions between them? Could this allow the nucleus to de-excite via transitions between these coupled isomeric stabilities - giving off quanta that are defined by the difference in energy between the different nuclear isomeric states (the eigenvalues)? Of course, this doesn't explain or help understand how the Coulomb barrier is overcome, just how it may be possible in condensed matter to de-excite a nucleus via multiple small gamma photons. Also, by this hypothetical mechanism, this behavior would be possible anywhere in the lattice and is not special to cracks or to the surface of the solid where LENR appears evidenced to occur. Perhaps the de-excitation of a nucleus by small gamma photons is a property of the condensed matter and overcoming of the Coulomb barrier is something that only happens in special features (cracks, surface) in the condensed matter. Obviously the nuclear coupling nucleus eigenmode splitting would be affected by the atomic spacing; and a hydrogen/deuterium atom in a crack would certainly have a different couplings, and hence different eigenmodes, than a hydrogen/deuterium atom would have inside the more regular lattice. Could a unique coupling that could occur with just the right crack, split the eigenmodes of the nucleus in such a way that it matches phonon eigenmodes in the lattice? Bob On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Regardless of their involvement, the Coulomb reduction process must take place in a manner to allow the mass-energy to be released gradually in small quanta before the fusion process is complete. Otherwise, if mass-energy remains in the final structure, it must result in gamma emission to be consistent with known behavior. At this point in the model, we are faced with a
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 rather than a bulk effect appears to go back to these observations: 1. In normal palladium, 4He is not mobile. If some process were to produce it in the bulk of an electrolytic cathode, the 4He would be there later and show up in an analysis. 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. 3. Assuming 4He is formed near the surface with some amount of energy, ~50 percent will lodge deeper into the cathode, and ~50 percent will move in the other direction. On the basis of analyses of different layers of a cathode, a rough limit can be placed on how deep into the cathode the 4He producing reaction occurred. 4. Pd/D cathodes that were observed to be active have been analyzed, and very little 4He was found in deeper layers. I think this was also the case when Pons and Fleischmann submitted their cathodes for analysis. Nate Hoffman has a very interesting insider account of this. I'm recalling all of this from memory -- please correct any points that are wrong or add in other observations that have led to the conclusion that Pd/D LENR is a surface effect. Note that these conclusions would not necessarily apply to Ni/H, possibly on multiple counts, although, on the other hand, it might also be the case that Ni/H LENR will be found to be a surface effect, assuming it is eventually established to everyone's satisfaction. Eric
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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) was proposed by Melvin Miles in an experiment in 1993 to be ~24 MeV per helium atom (not palladium atom). Eric
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 12:41 pm Subject: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III Iperiodically have to start over with this discussion because the responseprovided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear conclusions areno longer possible. In addition, a clearer understanding results fromthese discussions and this needs to be examined without the distraction created by theearlier discussion. Thephenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to guide a modeland were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These features are: 1.The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as energetic particles, asis the normal case by nuclear reactions and hot fusion in particular. 2.The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and difficult toreplicate in the laboratory. 3.The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience with the hot fusion process. 4.The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain solids. 5.The process does not require applied energy to be initiated although extraenergy will increase its rate. Thesefeatures do not need additional demonstration or experimental detail to beaccepted as real by a knowledgeable observer. Thechallenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not conflict withwhat is known about conventional nuclear reactions and isconsistent with what is observed. The need for such an explanation, eventhought it is incomplete, flows from the fact that this phenomenon is toocomplex to investigate successfully using trial and error. In fact, allexperiments in science are guided at some level by an explanation, which issometimes informal and based on current observed behavior but more often isbased on established laws of Nature. The best model is the one that isconsistent with the largest number of observations and makes accuratepredictions about previously unseen behavior. These models are notdesigned to or are required to justify belief that the phenomenon called LENR is real. Theyare required to guide effective research that might eventually provide therequired justification for acceptance. To dothis, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must beconsistent with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical systemsin which the LENR effect occurs. Agreeing on which assumptions areconsistent with the required rules (laws) and which are not has been the basiccause of conflict and argument about the proposed models. Beforelisting the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several nuclear processesand reactions can occur in a material at the same time. For the discussion tobe clear, we need to focus on only one reaction at a time. Initially thediscussion will focus on the most active reaction that results in themajor amount of detected heat energy. Severalmodels propose processes other than fusion. These models involve either creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized form in the material. The resulting neutrons then interactwith nuclei to form the observed nuclear products. This discussion is notfocused on this claim other than to note that the observed behavior is notconsistent with this process and many parts of the model conflict with basiclaws of nature. Therefore, this path will not be explored here. The present discussionfocuses only on fusion of hydrons as the process called LENR. Threebasic processes have to occur at the same location and at the same time. No significant delay may separate thesethree events. These events are: A. Twoor more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same time in the material. B. Twoor more hydrons must overcome the Coulomb barrier separating them. C. The resulting reduction inmass-energy must be converted to heat-energy. Thebasic assumptions used here are: 1. Thebehavior involves only one basic mechanism that occurs at the same basiclocation in the active material being examined. 2. The nuclear process can involve any isotope of hydrogen. 3. The entire process must be consistent with all known laws of physics and chemistry, although gaps in knowledge are accepted. The above assumptions and observed behavior alone allow auseful model to be proposed. To start the process, the location of the nuclearprocess in the material must be identified. I call this location, the NuclearActive Environment (NAE). Consequently, a new assumption is introduced that says: The NAE is a new physical structure having no connection through quantum mechanical processes or the laws of thermodynamics with the atoms that form the lattice structure.
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 me understand what is being reported. Dr. Peter Hagelstein (MIT) has a theory and simulation about the effect of coupling of the deuteron(s) in the lattice to the other surrounding atoms in the lattice. We all know each of the atoms in solid condensed matter is highly coupled to its neighboring atoms by the shared electron orbitals. This is strong coupling - it is what makes a solid. I also know from my RF training about he behavior of coupled resonant structures. Take a single resonant structure having a single resonant frequency. It has a single eigenmode (resonance). Now take an identical resonant element and bring it into coupling with the first. What happens is that the eigenmode of each splits into two eigenmodes geometrically centered on the original eigenmode. If there are 3 coupled resonators, then EACH resonator will have 3 eigenmodes. Even weak coupling cause the multiple eigenmodes, but they may be close to each other. Now consider that each atom in a lattice is a resonant element that is coupled to all of the other surrounding atoms in the lattice - strongly coupled to the close ones, and weakly coupled to the more distant atoms. Also imagine that the nucleus is a resonant structure (vibrational, rotational, and maybe in other dimensions) and is coupled to the electron cloud and hence to all of the other neighboring atoms and their nuclei. This would mean that the nucleus itself could now have multiple eigenmodes through its coupling to the neighboring atoms - something that would really only occur in condensed matter. One way these nuclear eigenmodes could be visualized may be in terms of formation of shallow isomeric stabilities in the nucleus. Could then, transitions between the multiple shallow isomeric stabilities be equivalent in some way to the eigenmodes of the electron cloud and allow transitions between them? Could this allow the nucleus to de-excite via transitions between these coupled isomeric stabilities - giving off quanta that are defined by the difference in energy between the different nuclear isomeric states (the eigenvalues)? Of course, this doesn't explain or help understand how the Coulomb barrier is overcome, just how it may be possible in condensed matter to de-excite a nucleus via multiple small gamma photons. Also, by this hypothetical mechanism, this behavior would be possible anywhere in the lattice and is not special to cracks or to the surface of the solid where LENR appears evidenced to occur. Perhaps the de-excitation of a nucleus by small gamma photons is a property of the condensed matter and overcoming of the Coulomb barrier is something that only happens in special features (cracks, surface) in the condensed matter. Obviously the nuclear coupling nucleus eigenmode splitting would be affected by the atomic spacing; and a hydrogen/deuterium atom in a crack would certainly have a different couplings, and hence different eigenmodes, than a hydrogen/deuterium atom would have inside the more regular lattice. Could a unique coupling that could occur with just the right crack, split the eigenmodes of the nucleus in such a way that it matches phonon eigenmodes in the lattice? Bob On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Regardless of their involvement, the Coulomb reduction process must take place in a manner to allow the mass-energy to be released gradually in small quanta before the fusion process is complete. Otherwise, if mass-energy remains in the final structure, it must result in gamma emission to be consistent with known behavior. At this point in the model, we are faced with a dilemma. What process can be proposed that satisfies the observed behavior but does not conflict with known and accepted concepts in physics? All of the proposed models are faced with this dilemma while attempting to solve the problem different ways. The only question is which of the proposed methods (theories) provides the most logical description of observed behavior and best predictions, because they all contain the consequence of this dilemma. Can we focus the discussion on this dilemma? Ed -- Regards, Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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, imagination can suggest all kinds of process, but a little common sense has to be used. Otherwise, no progress will be made,. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Paul Breed wrote: 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 the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 or Ross'is claims at all they seem to be able to turn it on and off at will... Same with Brilliuons phase one published experiments... 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. A less perfect slightly lower Q structure might run with a tiny tickle of the right excitation An even less perfect much lower Q structure might allow transmutations, but not energy gain when properly stimulated Experiments like the arc transmutations and the hydrogen xray tube neutron generator experiments seem to do LENR without having to specially prepare or otherwise coddle the material. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: 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, imagination can suggest all kinds of process, but a little common sense has to be used. Otherwise, no progress will be made,. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Paul Breed wrote: 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 the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
*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 narrow Nano-metric cavities. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: 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 or Ross'is claims at all they seem to be able to turn it on and off at will... Same with Brilliuons phase one published experiments... 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. A less perfect slightly lower Q structure might run with a tiny tickle of the right excitation An even less perfect much lower Q structure might allow transmutations, but not energy gain when properly stimulated Experiments like the arc transmutations and the hydrogen xray tube neutron generator experiments seem to do LENR without having to specially prepare or otherwise coddle the material. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: 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, imagination can suggest all kinds of process, but a little common sense has to be used. Otherwise, no progress will be made,. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Paul Breed wrote: 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 the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 Breed wrote: 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. Starting a process is entirely different from increasing its rate, as you know from chemistry. These two processes generally have no relationship to each other. Why assume they are related during LENR? If one accepts Defklions or Ross'is claims at all they seem to be able to turn it on and off at will... Same with Brilliuons phase one published experiments... None of these examples is based on any more than hearsay. We have no details. I'm using only information that is not in doubt. Suppose the NAE is a resonance of some kind The NAE is a PLACE. It is NOT a condition. A resonance can occur INSIDE of the NAE. You need to apply the concepts as they are intended. 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. 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. Ed A less perfect slightly lower Q structure might run with a tiny tickle of the right excitation An even less perfect much lower Q structure might allow transmutations, but not energy gain when properly stimulated Experiments like the arc transmutations and the hydrogen xray tube neutron generator experiments seem to do LENR without having to specially prepare or otherwise coddle the material. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: 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, imagination can suggest all kinds of process, but a little common sense has to be used. Otherwise, no progress will be made,. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Paul Breed wrote: 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 the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
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 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 possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface?
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
You pose an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads to an increase in the number of NAE that form due to its interaction with the metal. Who knows? I have long wondered if evidence exists for a limited chain reaction of some sort since some of the earlier surface pictures appeared to demonstrate explosive crater formations. Perhaps Ed or someone has seen very strong evidence that each LENR event is entirely independent of the next one and limited in scale to just one helium formation. Is anyone aware of evidence in support to this hypothesis? I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required before another can be initiated. Perhaps our favorite spark plug in the form of a cosmic ray deposits the secret ingredient that then allows for the follow up LENR action. No one could doubt that a cosmic ray has sufficient energy to trigger a small nuclear fusion reaction. We need to be careful not to automatically reject such a nuclear event as being inconsistent since no high energy radiation is evident. I would contend that a cosmic ray represents a very high level of high energy radiation by itself. 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 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 possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface?
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 a landslide pushing a hundred trees into a river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
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 that form due to its interaction with the metal. Who knows? If enough helium forms, this will certainly be true. However, this requires the effect run for a long time without this aid. I have long wondered if evidence exists for a limited chain reaction of some sort since some of the earlier surface pictures appeared to demonstrate explosive crater formations. Two kinds of surface effects occur. Some are caused by material depositing from an impure electrolyte at the site of H2 loss from a crack. Others are caused by local melting produced by a very high concentration of NAE. These two types are easy to separate. Perhaps Ed or someone has seen very strong evidence that each LENR event is entirely independent of the next one and limited in scale to just one helium formation. Is anyone aware of evidence in support to this hypothesis? The local areas flash off and on in apparently random ways, as been seen and measured by Szpak et al. I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required before another can be initiated. Perhaps our favorite spark plug in the form of a cosmic ray deposits the secret ingredient that then allows for the follow up LENR action. No one could doubt that a cosmic ray has sufficient energy to trigger a small nuclear fusion reaction. We need to be careful not to automatically reject such a nuclear event as being inconsistent since no high energy radiation is evident. I would contend that a cosmic ray represents a very high level of high energy radiation by itself. Before you speculate too much, Dave, you really need 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 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 possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface?
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Dave -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 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 river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required before another can be initiated. The concentration of electrons on the surface of the nano-material must reach a critical level before the reaction is productive. Rossi uses thermoelectric material to get this surface electron density up and DGT uses a spark discharge. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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 evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Dave -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 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 river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Yes Dave, thin layers of Pd have been studied and found to produce energy. 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. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:43 PM, David Roberson wrote: 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 evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Dave -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 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 river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
*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, by VerticalNews correspondents, research stated, Planar clusters of coupled plasmonic nanoparticles support nanoscale electromagnetic 'hot spots' and coherent effects, such as Fano resonances, with unique near and far field signatures, currently of prime interest for sensing applications. Here we show that plasmonic cluster properties can be substantially modified by the addition of individual, discrete dielectric nanoparticles at specific locations on the cluster, introducing... Fano resonance in a nanowire can convert heat/electron particles into electromagnetic hotspots aka nuclear active areas. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I periodically have to start over with this discussion because the response provided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear conclusions are no longer possible. In addition, a clearer understanding results from these discussions and this needs to be examined without the distraction created by the earlier discussion. The phenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to guide a model and were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These features are: 1. The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as energetic particles, as is the normal case by nuclear reactions and hot fusion in particular. 2. The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and difficult to replicate in the laboratory. 3. The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience with the hot fusion process. 4. The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain solids. 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated although extra energy will increase its rate. These features do not need additional demonstration or experimental detail to be accepted as real by a knowledgeable observer. The challenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not conflict with what is known about conventional nuclear reactions and is consistent with what is observed. The need for such an explanation, even thought it is incomplete, flows from the fact that this phenomenon is too complex to investigate successfully using trial and error. In fact, all experiments in science are guided at some level by an explanation, which is sometimes informal and based on current observed behavior but more often is based on established laws of Nature. The best model is the one that is consistent with the largest number of observations and makes accurate predictions about previously unseen behavior. These models are not designed to or are required to justify belief that the phenomenon called LENR is real. They are required to guide effective research that might eventually provide the required justification for acceptance. To do this, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must be consistent with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical systems in which the LENR effect occurs. Agreeing on which assumptions are consistent with the required rules (laws) and which are not has been the basic cause of conflict and argument about the proposed models. Before listing the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several nuclear processes and reactions can occur in a material at the same time. For the discussion to be clear, we need to focus on only one reaction at a time. Initially the discussion will focus on the most active reaction that results in the major amount of detected heat energy. Several models propose processes other than fusion. These models involve either creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized form in the material. The resulting neutrons then interact with nuclei to form the observed nuclear products. This discussion is not focused on this claim other than to note that the observed behavior is not consistent with this process and many parts of the model conflict with basic laws of nature. Therefore, this path will not be explored here. The present discussion focuses only on fusion of hydrons as the process called LENR. Three basic processes have to occur at the same location and at the same time. No significant delay may separate these three events. These events are: A. Two or more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same time in the material. B. Two or more hydrons must overcome the Coulomb barrier separating them. C. The resulting reduction in mass-energy must be converted to heat-energy. The basic assumptions used here are: 1.The behavior involves only one basic mechanism that occurs
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Maybe... suppose its a bulk effec, but it gets clogged with He. So it happens everywhere, but it can only repeat at the surface where He clears... Dr Storms says by the behavior of He we know its a surface effect. Do we really know enough to say that its a surface effect, or do we only know enough to say the surface is the only place where He can escape? IE Melting a cathode after the fact and looking to see if it then releases trapped He would be a big clue, that is why I asked if that experiment had been done? If you melt it and git minimal new He, I think we can say with 90% certainty its a surface effect If one gets excess helium after melting the cathode it might not be a surface effect The best test would be to divinde a cathode run one half in a cell and leave one half in a he free environment... Then melt both and see the He emission difference.. Paul
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 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, by VerticalNews correspondents, research stated, Planar clusters of coupled plasmonic nanoparticles support nanoscale electromagnetic 'hot spots' and coherent effects, such as Fano resonances, with unique near and far field signatures, currently of prime interest for sensing applications. Here we show that plasmonic cluster properties can be substantially modified by the addition of individual, discrete dielectric nanoparticles at specific locations on the cluster, introducing... Fano resonance in a nanowire can convert heat/electron particles into electromagnetic hotspots aka nuclear active areas. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I periodically have to start over with this discussion because the response provided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear conclusions are no longer possible. In addition, a clearer understanding results from these discussions and this needs to be examined without the distraction created by the earlier discussion. The phenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to guide a model and were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These features are: 1. The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as energetic particles, as is the normal case by nuclear reactions and hot fusion in particular. 2. The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and difficult to replicate in the laboratory. 3. The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience with the hot fusion process. 4. The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain solids. 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated although extra energy will increase its rate. These features do not need additional demonstration or experimental detail to be accepted as real by a knowledgeable observer. The challenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not conflict with what is known about conventional nuclear reactions and is consistent with what is observed. The need for such an explanation, even thought it is incomplete, flows from the fact that this phenomenon is too complex to investigate successfully using trial and error. In fact, all experiments in science are guided at some level by an explanation, which is sometimes informal and based on current observed behavior but more often is based on established laws of Nature. The best model is the one that is consistent with the largest number of observations and makes accurate predictions about previously unseen behavior. These models are not designed to or are required to justify belief that the phenomenon called LENR is real. They are required to guide effective research that might eventually provide the required justification for acceptance. To do this, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must be consistent with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical systems in which the LENR effect occurs. Agreeing on which assumptions are consistent with the required rules (laws) and which are not has been the basic cause of conflict and argument about the proposed models. Before listing the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several nuclear processes and reactions can occur in a material at the same time. For the discussion to be clear, we need to focus on only one reaction at a time. Initially the discussion will focus on the most active reaction that results in the major amount of detected heat energy. Several models propose processes other than fusion. These models involve either creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized form in the material. The resulting neutrons then interact with nuclei to form the observed nuclear products. This discussion is not focused on this claim other than to note that the observed behavior is not consistent with this process and many parts of the model conflict with basic laws of nature. Therefore, this path will not be explored here. The present discussion focuses only on fusion of hydrons as the process called LENR. Three basic processes have to occur at the same location and at the same time. No significant delay may separate these three events. These events are: A. Two or more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same time in the material. B. Two or more hydrons must
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
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 that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have been involved in what we call Blue Sky Thinking where people freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas are not immediately negatively criticized by the other participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended to offer? It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail without exception, there is room for wild speculation. One day, someone will generate that theory from the collection of evidence where all the pieces will fit together perfectly. Ed, you have a pretty good theory but there are still others in contention. Do you consider your theory as iron clad at this time? If so, I understand why you want to ensure that noise coming from other directions does not misdirect the understanding of how LENR behaves. My question above is important to answer and if you are absolutely confident that each fusion reaction is of only a single pair of D's that is randomly occurring and disconnected please let me know. That tiny bit of knowledge is vital to my understanding. Evidence exists that there is connection between individual events which just popped into my mind. You have stated that the effect is temperature dependent as we believe which implies that each energy release adds heat to the system leading to more of the same. This is correlated in time. Now, how fast does the energy released by each reaction dissipate among the NAE? There most likely exists a relaxation time during which the energy becomes spread throughout the material. Would it not seem likely that the nearby NAE would be effected much more strongly than those far removed? The density of NAE that are present within a region of the metal could be a major indication of the magnitude of energy released due to this interaction. You might want to consider how this effect could fit into your 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 an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads to an increase in the number of NAE that form due to its interaction with the metal. Who knows? If enough helium forms, this will certainly be true. However, this requires the effect run for a long time without this aid. I have long wondered if evidence exists for a limited chain reaction of some sort since some of the earlier surface pictures appeared to demonstrate explosive crater formations. Two kinds of surface effects occur. Some are caused by material depositing from an impure electrolyte at the site of H2 loss from a crack. Others are caused by local melting produced by a very high concentration of NAE. These two types are easy to separate. Perhaps Ed or someone has seen very strong evidence that each LENR event is entirely independent of the next one and limited in scale to just one helium formation. Is anyone aware of evidence in support to this hypothesis? The local areas flash off and on in apparently random ways, as been seen and measured by Szpak et al. I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required before another can be initiated. Perhaps our favorite spark plug in the form of a cosmic ray deposits the secret ingredient that then allows for the follow up LENR action. No one could doubt that a cosmic ray has sufficient energy to trigger a small nuclear fusion reaction. We need to be careful not to automatically reject such a nuclear event as being inconsistent since no high energy radiation is evident. I would contend that a cosmic ray represents a very high level of high energy radiation by itself. Before you speculate too much, Dave, you really need 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
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
into your 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 an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads to an increase in the number of NAE that form due to its interaction with the metal. Who knows? If enough helium forms, this will certainly be true. However, this requires the effect run for a long time without this aid. I have long wondered if evidence exists for a limited chain reaction of some sort since some of the earlier surface pictures appeared to demonstrate explosive crater formations. Two kinds of surface effects occur. Some are caused by material depositing from an impure electrolyte at the site of H2 loss from a crack. Others are caused by local melting produced by a very high concentration of NAE. These two types are easy to separate. Perhaps Ed or someone has seen very strong evidence that each LENR event is entirely independent of the next one and limited in scale to just one helium formation. Is anyone aware of evidence in support to this hypothesis? The local areas flash off and on in apparently random ways, as been seen and measured by Szpak et al. I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required before another can be initiated. Perhaps our favorite spark plug in the form of a cosmic ray deposits the secret ingredient that then allows for the follow up LENR action. No one could doubt that a cosmic ray has sufficient energy to trigger a small nuclear fusion reaction. We need to be careful not to automatically reject such a nuclear event as being inconsistent since no high energy radiation is evident. I would contend that a cosmic ray represents a very high level of high energy radiation by itself. Before you speculate too much, Dave, you really need 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 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 possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface?
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
I think Pons Fleishmann had their meltdown on a relatively very thick piece of Palladium. It was the thickest piece they had experimented on, 1 cubic centimeter IIRC. I know that's only one datapoint, but there could be others if we look for them. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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 evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Dave -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 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 river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby. This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is what I am expecting to cause the difference. The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea some attention. 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 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 that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior. Nevertheless, this is enough to show that individual events are contributing to an average that is measured as heat. You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have been involved in what we call Blue Sky Thinking where people freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas are not immediately negatively criticized by the other participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended to offer? Yes, but it helps if the thinking is based on some connection to reality. I can also think of all kinds of novel ideas, but the goal is to actually make progress in seeing reality. Giving ideas at random is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Yes, you can make some interesting moves, but you will not win the game. It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail without exception, there is room for wild speculation. This was true in 1989, but not now. Would you speculate to a doctor about how the gall bladder functions or to Boeing Inc. how the airplane actually works? Perhaps these are extreme examples, but my suggestion is to learn something first. One day, someone will generate that theory from the collection of evidence where all the pieces will fit together perfectly. Ed, you have a pretty good theory but there are still others in contention. Do you consider your theory as iron clad at this time? I have identified certain aspects a successful theory must have. I have not provided all the details yet. The only way a theory can be judged is by how effectively it explains what is observed. My theory is more effective in doing this than any other. This only means that it is on the right tract. I'm only show where the gold is buried, not how to dig or why it is present at that location. That information comes later. If so, I understand why you want to ensure that noise coming from other directions does not misdirect the understanding of how LENR behaves. I object to the noise as you say only because it is a distraction from hearing what is being sought, rather like listening to music while a friend constantly talks. My question above is important to answer and if you are absolutely confident that each fusion
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Well Dave, your description might affect local regions. If the concentration of NAE is too high, a runaway effect might occur locally and cause local melting, which would kill the effect at that location. Nevertheless, the heat is not created only at the site of the reaction. The reaction produces photons that have a range in matter before they lose their energy as heat. The net result is complicated because the energy from one NAE site is absorbed throughout the material thanks to the photon flux. We only have the ability to measure the average temperature and the average power, although local heating can be detected as brief bursts of increased temperature and local melting. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:47 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby. This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is what I am expecting to cause the difference. The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea some attention. 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 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 that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior. Nevertheless, this is enough to show that individual events are contributing to an average that is measured as heat. You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have been involved in what we call Blue Sky Thinking where people freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas are not immediately negatively criticized by the other participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended to offer? Yes, but it helps if the thinking is based on some connection to reality. I can also think of all kinds of novel ideas, but the goal is to actually make progress in seeing reality. Giving ideas at random is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Yes, you can make some interesting moves, but you will not win the game. It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail without exception, there is room for wild speculation. This was true in 1989, but not now. Would you speculate to a doctor about how the gall bladder functions or to Boeing Inc. how the airplane actually works? Perhaps these are extreme examples, but my suggestion is to learn something first. One day, someone will generate that theory from the collection of evidence where all the pieces will fit together perfectly. Ed, you have a pretty good theory but there are still others in contention. Do you consider your theory as iron clad at this time? I have identified certain aspects a successful theory
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
I guess a lot depends upon information that is difficult to obtain. I assumed that your process emitted photons of many types, but figured they could not be too energetic or else we would have detected them outside of the material since the surface is where they originate. This implies that they are not capable of much penetration. I understand why the local heating would destroy the active NAE if too much heat were generated. Is this not what you would normally expect to happen with active fusion occurring? My mental picture of your theory was that new NAE are being formed all of the time to replace those that are jammed with helium or other ash. Local melting might help to accomplish this task since the rapid cooling due to heat diffusion into the nearby colder metal would lead to dislocations. The appearance of the metal surface from some of the earlier experiments strongly suggested to me that some form of chain reaction was occurring at least on occasions. The amount of energy required to produce the observed craters must have been much larger than that due to just one lone fusion event. If we couple this behavior with the density variations of your NAE, an explanation for the large variation in excess power might emerge. The large scale meltdown of the PF cube would fall into this category as well. If this type of activity is possible, a dangerous thermal effect is not out of the question. Are you or anyone else aware of other run 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 description might affect local regions. If the concentration of NAE is too high, a runaway effect might occur locally and cause local melting, which would kill the effect at that location. Nevertheless, the heat is not created only at the site of the reaction. The reaction produces photons that have a range in matter before they lose their energy as heat. The net result is complicated because the energy from one NAE site is absorbed throughout the material thanks to the photon flux. We only have the ability to measure the average temperature and the average power, although local heating can be detected as brief bursts of increased temperature and local melting. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:47 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby. This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is what I am expecting to cause the difference. The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea some attention. 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 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 that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Under my theory of LENR it may be possible to setup a single nuclear active site for observation and measure what goes on inside that volume in detail. The experiment involves setting up a quantum dot with a 600 electron storage capacity constructed in a way to enclose the electron ensemble in nickel walls with the entirety of the device surrounded by a pressurized hydrogen atmosphere. A Pd/D system can be setup in like manner. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Well Dave, your description might affect local regions. If the concentration of NAE is too high, a runaway effect might occur locally and cause local melting, which would kill the effect at that location. Nevertheless, the heat is not created only at the site of the reaction. The reaction produces photons that have a range in matter before they lose their energy as heat. The net result is complicated because the energy from one NAE site is absorbed throughout the material thanks to the photon flux. We only have the ability to measure the average temperature and the average power, although local heating can be detected as brief bursts of increased temperature and local melting. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:47 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby. This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is what I am expecting to cause the difference. The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea some attention. 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 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 that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior. Nevertheless, this is enough to show that individual events are contributing to an average that is measured as heat. You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have been involved in what we call Blue Sky Thinking where people freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas are not immediately negatively criticized by the other participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended to offer? Yes, but it helps if the thinking is based on some connection to reality. I can also think of all kinds of novel ideas, but the goal is to actually make progress in seeing reality. Giving ideas at random is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Yes, you can make some interesting moves, but you will not win the game. It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail without exception, there is room for wild speculation. This was true in 1989, but not now. Would you speculate to a doctor about how
