The *Pauli exclusion principle* is the quantum mechanical principle that no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. A more rigorous statement is that the total wave function for two identical fermions is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles. It is irrelevant where the fermions are: in the walls of the NAE or inside it. For example, in an isolated atom no two electrons can have the same four quantum numbers if *n*, *ℓ*, and *mℓ* are the same, *ms* must be different such that the electrons have opposite spins, and so on.
In a crack, no two electrons can have the same quantum number. A crack is like a gigantic atom to the electrons where they all must have their own obit(quantum number). On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 < > [email protected]> 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:[email protected]] >> *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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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. >> >> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 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 <[email protected]> >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> >> *Cc:* Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> >> *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 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 <[email protected] >> > 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 <[email protected]> >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> >> *Cc:* Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> >> *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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
