I have been attempting to understand how the many electrons couple together to allow one to achieve the .78 MeV energy. Does this mechanism behave in a manner that is substantially different than normal where an electron is subject to motion due to an electric field? I picture myself riding upon one electron contained within a sea of them moving together at the same velocity. Since they are at rest relative to me, there is no force acting upon my test element due to them. I assume that there is a balancing positive charge consisting of the surrounding nuclei available to keep the standard Coulomb forces at bay.
The motion of the positive charges relative to my electron ride could be thought of as the source of a magnetic field since they would constitute an electric current. I think that this positive current flow generates a magnetic field that is at right angles to its relative motion and thus ours. Any change to our relative velocity would be met with the magnetic field and deflected at right angles. Could this behavior be connected to the strange effect? The magnitude of the force generated would be proportional to the number of electrons contained within our group. I am having a difficult time locating any strange coupling mechanism between electrons that are in constant relative motion to each other. It has been my experience that constant motion among a group of particles is equivalent to no motion at all in a frame of reference that matches the motion. The lack of relative motion suggests that there would be no unusual coupling. Ed is asking a good question in my opinion. I think he suggests that the fusion is between a group of components that include a P+ e- P+ combination. This fusion would only be subject to an Coulomb barrier of ~.1 MeV since the Protons have a charge of +1 unit each. I am not sure about the magnitude of shielding that comes along with the electron, but it would lower that barrier somewhat. This is at least 8 times less energy than required to construct a neutron from its two main parts. Perhaps it would be a good idea to generate a list of all of the neutron generation techniques that have been proven and accepted to see if any clues arise about the relative difficulty seen in their generation. I am aware of sources derived from fusion and fission processes that are well documented. Are there well known and effective generation techniques of a subtle nature involving large current pulses that we should consider? Dave -----Original Message----- From: pagnucco <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Jun 10, 2012 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model Fair questions, Jaro, Yes, there is a 782 Kev barrier to overcome. Maybe I misunderstand the objection, but why is "0.1 ev" relevant? Google "superfocusing nanoantenna plasmon" - aren't the electrons in ields of nanostructure hotspots vastly more energetic than that? our starting baseline and the "7,000,000 times" figure may be incorrect. A possible energy focusing mechanism (for the magnetic field case) is the Darwin interaction" term in the Darwin Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian). ee, for example, equation(29) on p.8 of - 'Hidden' Momentum of a Steady Current Distribution in a System at 'Rest'" ttp://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/current.pdf his momentum is inconsequential in normal currents with very slow lecrron drift velocities, but potentially huge in quasi-ballistic eams/currents. Storms equates an electron's energy with its kinetic (m(v^2)/2) energy. his figure is also in the Darwin Lagrangian, but so are a huge number of cross terms" of "generalized momentum" due to inter-electron couplings. Say we have 10,000,000 electrons all moving roughly in parallel and at the ame speed. Let's attach subscripts to those electrons so that their elocity vectors are designated v1, v2, v3, ..., v10000000. Lets say the lectron with velocity v1 is in a collision. Then the energy it can eliver includes the usually kinetic energy proportional to the v1*v1 term dot product), but also includes the 9,999,999 weighted cross-terms, 1*v2, v1*v3, v1*v4, ..., v1*v10000000. While in diffusive currents these terms sum up destructively, in coherent urrents, they add up constructively and can be huge. So, maybe, an lectron in a coherent beam can breach potential barriers much higher than e normally think. It may also be worth computing how an electron's magnetic field energy can warf its kinetic energy in nanostructures. or example, see (and plug in some nano-sized numbers into formulas at:) How Much of Magnetic Energy Is Kinetic Energy?" ttp://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/kinetic.pdf -- Lou Pagnucco aro Jaro wrote: 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" <jth...@hotmail.com> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> 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: <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
