Just to add to my earlier thought.
Ed calculates that the energy of formation for a neutron is 0.76MeV. This
energy must be concentrated from a "sea" of energy less than 0.1 eV.
What mechanism will accumulate energy over 7,000,000 times its
concentration, and concentrate it on one location to enable the formation of
a single Neutron. Now consider this mechanism operating billions of times
to enable the reaction rates proposed by W&L to take place. Even Ahern's
explanation by collective oscillations of nanomagnetism seems inadequate for
this task.
I'm with Ed on this one. Seems his explanation is more probable compared to
W&L's ULMN miracles.
Did I understand this correctly? Where did I go wrong on this? Lou, please
explain if you have one. I am willing to be wrong on this. I have no Pet
Theory to back or to discredit.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jojo Jaro" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
If I understand you correctly, what you are proposing is similar to
Ahern's collective oscillons explanation; that random movements tend to
conglomerate together to "concentrate" energy that would organize
electrons contrary to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
That idea is intriguing if I understood it correctly. Can you propose an
experimental setup to verify or falsify that idea? I'm all ears and
willing to set up such an experiment.
But, even if that were true, how does it provide enough energy on one
location enough to create a neutron? And an Ultra-low Momemtum neutron at
that.
So, I guess you're a free "neutron" person :-)
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
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
