On p.10 of "An explanation of low energy nuclear reactions", Storms tries to rebut Widom-Larsen theory of electron capture:
"On the other hand, neutrons have been proposed to form[56-61] by fusion of an electron with a proton or deuteron, which requires about 0.76 MeV to be present at the time and place of the reaction. Because this explanation of LENR has gotten wide attention, it needs to be fully understood. The idea is flawed because it assumes enough energy to form a neutron can be concentrated in a chemical environment at one location. Energy is a real and basic quantity that is not observed to accumulate spontaneously beyond well-understood limits.1 If such large energy were to concentrate in an electron or the target nucleus, it would have to be harvested from an environment in which the average energy is much less than 0.1 eV. Consequently, packets of energy would have to spontaneously seek out and add to individual electrons in which the accumulating energy must be stored. How is this storage accomplished? The electron is a fundamental particle that cannot store energy. If it could, its rest mass would not be constant..." Whether W-L theory is correct or not, I believe Storms is wrong here. The coupling of one electron via electric or magnetic fields to others in a coherent electron beam (i.e., its photon "dressing") can enormously increase its effective mass and its impact energy in collisions. If a single electron in a tightly coupled coherent beam of 10,000,000 electrons impacts another particle, I believe that electron will indeed concentrate some energy from the other 9,999,999 electrons. This coupling is evident in the "Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin Lagrangian. (e.g., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Lagrangian) For a general discussion on how the collective magnetic field stores energy that individual electrons can tap, see: "Thoughts on the magnetic vector potential" - Mark D. Semon, et al American Journal of Physics, vol.64(11), Nov.1996 pp.1361-9 http://www.uccs.edu/~jmarsh2/links/AJP-64-11-1361.pdf Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. A mechanical analog - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m hill - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges cannot be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. I do like Storms's approach. I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can focus incident fields many thousands of times. -- Lou Pagnucco Jaro Jaro wrote: > Hey Gang, I tried posting Ed Storm's new paper as an attachment to this > forum as per Ed's request but it did not post properly. > > Hopefully, Jed has it posted on his site already. Jed, is it up on your > site? > > What do you guys think of Ed Storm's new model of LENR. Ed seems to have > pinned downt the exact conditions for the creation of a Nuclear Active > Environment (NAE). I am not smart enough to fully undrestand his new > model or its ramifications. I'm hoping the smart folks here could break > it down and discuss it. > > > Jojo > > >
