Jaro, Of course all explanations should be considered with suspicion when rare (possibly imaginary), counterintuitive LENR events occur.
It is relatively easy to contrive more mechanical examples in 3-d, say with balls coupled with elastic springs impacting a randomly placed obstacle. However, I think you identified an important problem - electromagnetically coupled charged particles can behave in very strange counterintuitive ways. Common sense may be failing us and leading us astray in LENR. I do not think field energy is stored in an electron. I think it is more accurate to regard it as delocalized. Equating the energy an electron can deliver during a collision only with its kinetic energy is probably pretty accurate when sparsely distributed particles collide in accelerators, but not when in dense coherent beams. -- Lou Pagnucco Jaro wrote: > Yes, Lou's freight train analogy is nice, unfortunately, it is not a very > accurate analogy. > > In the train example, we expect the energy of the 100 cars behind the lead > car to impart all its energy to the lead car. This only becomes true when > the lead car can "absorb", "Store" and "concentrate" energy - in this case > all the kinetic energy of the 100 cars behind it in an elastic collision. > As Ed correctly pointed out, the electron is a fundamental particle that > CAN > NOT "store" energy from it's neighbors. If a mechanism can be found that > can do this and concentrate 7,000,000 times the energy into one electron, > and do it at a rate consistent with the energy release rate obversed, then > find a mechanism that can create ULMN at the correct rates, then W&L might > become a viable explanation. > > One of the major objections to W&L is that the 'reaction rates" are all > inconsistent. It's one thing to imagine a plausible mechanism, it's > another > thing for that mechansim to occur at rates sufficient to explain the > phenomenom. It's all a question of probability and rates. > > This argument applies to all other neutron creation ideas brought up in > this > thread - ie. cosmic rays, stray gammas, nanoantennas etc. While these > mechanisms are probable, it just is not occuring at the correct rates to > explain the phenomenom. > > BTW: the 0.1eV is the surrounding energy. Ed's point is that 0.76MeV must > be harvested from a chemical sea of energy whose average is less than 0.1 > eV. Hence a concentration of over 7,000,000 times. Ed does bring up a > very > good point. Whatever mechanism we propose, it must be consistent with > known > mechanisms known to operate in a known chemical environment. Lou's > explanation appears to be inconsistent with what we generally know about > the > behavior in such chemical environment. > > But as always; I am all ears to any corrections to my understanding, and I > am willing to be wrong. > > > Jojo > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harry Veeder" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:51 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 >> >> Nice analogy. > > >
