*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. *
See my posts under the many worlds of charge screening. On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:06 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: > 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" <hveeder...@gmail.com> > > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > > 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, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> 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. > > > > > > > > >
