Hello Jaro, First, I am not proposing anyone's theory. I am citing classical physics analogs to W-L theory that look supportive. Since I don't know Ahern's theory, I can't comment on it.
I'm not sure why you think the 2nd law is violated. Concentrating energy can be done in many ways - with antennas, magnifying glasses, nail tips, superfocusing nanostructures, etc..., all okay with the laws thermodynamics. The electrons in a coherent beam are tightly and stiffly coupled. Perhaps another analogy is to compare how a 100 km/hr rock can break a window, but if broken into powder cannot. As far as suggesting an experiment, I would like to see whether the transmutations due to electron beams reported in -- "A Review of Transmutation and Clustering in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" - M.A. Prelas, G.H. Miley, et al research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/Prelas.ppt -- could be replicated. Jaro Jaro wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
