A major issue keeps being ignored. The effect CAN NOT occur unless a basic
change is made in the material. You can apply all the laser energy or RF
frequency you want, but nothing will happen until a critical change occurs,
which I call the NAE.
It all depends on how you consider the material. Matter can be considered
as either a particle or a wave. If we look on matter as a wave, then light,
heat, and RF can modify matter.
The field of Nanophotonics is a very new field in physics and within just
the last year is producing some amazing transformations of matter by
creating all sorts of interesting and useful quasiparticles.
We can now turn electrons into bosons by shining a laser on them or we can
now convert heat into electrons, infrared into x-rays of gamma rays into
heat.
The interaction of EMF with these nanoscale features leads to confinement
of the electromagnetic field to the surface or tip of the nanostructure
resulting in a region referred to as the optical near field. This effect is
to some extent analogous to a lightning rod, where the field concentrates
at the tip. In this region, the field may need to adjust to the topography
of the nanostructure which is subject to the boundary conditions of
Maxwell's equations. This means that the electromagnetic field will be
dependent on the size and shape of the nanostructure that the EMF is
interacting with. This is where the NAE is born.
For example, we can change the color of gold or carbon to any color of the
rainbow by adjusting the size and shape of its nanoparticle.
Novel optical properties of materials can result from their extremely small
size. A typical example of this type of effect is the color change
associated with colloidal gold. In contrast to bulk gold, known for its
yellow color, gold particles of 10 to 100 nm in size exhibit a rich red
color.
I am now of the opinion that manipulation of matter on the nano-scale,
where it is properly considered as a wave, is where the mysteries of LENR
can be found.
Cheers: Axil
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> A major issue keeps being ignored. The effect CAN NOT occur unless a basic
> change is made in the a material. You can apply all the laser energy or RF
> frequency you want, but nothing will happen until a critical change occurs,
> which I call the NAE. Ordinary materials are not active without this NAE
> being present. Once this change has taken place, application of extra
> energy in ANY form will increase the magnitude of the effect. This
> critical change occurs by random processes that are usually initiated by
> unexpected events occuring as part of the initial treatment. As a result,
> the resulting new conditions are ignored and the LENR is attributed to
> later application of RF or other treatments. In fact, once the critical
> change occurs, LENR will occur spontaneously without any extra effect
> provide hydros are made available to the location of the NAE. If you want
> to succeed, you must identify how to make these critical changes by more
> than random chance. Otherwise, you are wasting your time.
>
> I seem to need to remind people that I have studied the effect for 23
> years and done thousands of experiments, most of which failed. My opinions
> are not based on imagination, as is generally the case. I have very good
> reasons to believe what I do, but most of the evidence is not available
> because it was not published. I know that suggesting ideas based on
> imagination is fun, but this is a waste of time unless the ideas are
> related to what is real. Unfortunately, I see very little reality being
> used in these discussions. Yes, reality does exist - everybody's opinion
> is not equal.
>
> Ed
>
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
> In a previous post, I explained why I have concluded that what the field
>> currently needs is not more theory, particularly theories proposed widely
>> in advance of the experimental evidence that makes the theory *necessary.*
>>
>> Ed has developed circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence is
>> inadequate to establish for braod consideration something that is as he
>> described, a "new idea in physics."
>>
>> Much of Ed's full theory is still circumstantial as to the problematic
>> part, the assertion of a mechanism to explain the "draining" process.
>> However, Ed does not do this in this paper, so I will set that issue aside,
>> at least at first.
>>
>> At 08:38 PM 2/13/2013, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to provide some advice to people attempting to explain
>>> LENR. This advice comes from someone who has studied the subject for
>>> the 23 years, who has an extensive background in chemistry and
>>> physics, and who has read almost every paper about the subject. I
>>> believe new ideas in physics are required, so my approach is not
>>> based on an unwillingness to explore new ideas. We know from centuries
>>> of observation and well developed understanding of materials that a
>>> nuclear interaction, whether it be fusion or transmutation, is not
>>> possible in normal material. Consequently, a novel and rare condition
>>> must be created.
>>>
>>
>> Ludwik pointed to a possible misinterpetation of the penultimate
>> sentence, and, after some thought, I'll agree with Ludwik that there is a
>> problem, but not exactly the problem he pointed to. What Ed is attempting
>> to assert here is sound, but the expression can be misunderstood in a way
>> that could inhibit certain further explorations of the topic. Further, the
>> logic is missing something.
>>
>> What is necessarily true is that a "novel and rare condition" must be
>> created. It must not occur spontaneously in "normal material." But what is
>> "normal material"? Highly loaded palladium deuteride is hardly a normal
>> material. And deuterium with muons floating about is hardly normal either.
>> Abnormal materials imply a relative lack of exploration of what happens in
>> them.
>>
>> However, the circumstantial evidence is strong that highly loaded
>> palladium deuteride, per se, doesn't exhibit the effect. Indeed, something
>> else is needed. This conclusion, however, is *not* from "centuries of
>> observation." It's actually coming, not from that, but from the accumulated
>> observation of the FP Heat Effect, which is what Ed knows so well. Ludwik
>> picked up on some exceptions, but those are covered by "normal," I'd say.
>> What's missing is the evidence about "normal palladium deuteride" (or
>> reference to it).
>>
>> I'm not sure how to handle this, but I'm hoping that Ed will recognize
>> the issue.
>>
>>
>> Two separate questions require answers.
>>>
>>> 1. What aspect of a material is able to initiate a spontaneous nuclear
>>> reaction? Something about a material must change and this change must
>>> involve only a small part of the material, i.e. the NAE.
>>>
>>
>> Ed is, as usual, correct, however, this has not logically been
>> established. This commonly happens when we write about something where we
>> have high familiarity, we skip steps. In a personal interaction, the
>> resulting gaps can be filled through question and response. It's more
>> difficult to do it concisely in an essay. The obvious question: "Why must
>> it only invove a small part of the material, and not, say, the bulk or the
>> entire surface, but at a low rate?"
>>
>> All this is part of what I might call "background theory," i.e. what must
>> be understood in order to begin to assess theories of cold fusion. What is
>> known? What can be reasonably concluded from what is known? Some theorists
>> proceed with a different order of business, i.e.,
>>
>> What can I imagine might be happening?
>> How can I present evidence to support this hypothesis?
>> How can I explain away evidence that appears not to support it?
>>
>> It's backwards, hence Ed's constant theme.
>>
>> For any hypothesis, it's possible that the "explaining away" is valid.
>> However, that's not where Occam's Razor leads us. The Razor suggests that
>> we first consider *all the evidence,* then attempt to explain *as much of
>> it as possible* with a relatively simply hypothesis.
>>
>> The true default hypothesis, per Occam's Razor, is that we don't
>> understand what's going on. It's usually true to at least some degree!
>>
>> Once this
>>> change occurs, the nuclear interaction occurs spontaneously without
>>> extra energy being required. This condition must be created first
>>> and be consistent with the mechanism that causes the nuclear reaction
>>> in the NAE.
>>>
>>
>> As to background theory, yes. However, again, we don't know the condition
>> itself. What we know are certain characteristics of the FPHE. From those we
>> infer some of the NAE conditions. Some remain obscure.
>>
>> This unique feature has been suggested to be metal atom
>>> vacancies, deuterium atom vacancies, clusters of D of various sizes
>>> with and without BEC being involved, gaps of a small size, locations
>>> were neutrons can form or be released, and unique features present in
>>> a highly loaded lattice that can initiate fusion.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. Some of these suggestions are bundled with specific theories, some
>> not.
>>
>> These features
>>> must be consistent with known chemical behavior and physical
>>> processes. No magic happens at this level. Although the condition is
>>> consistent with conventional chemical behavior, it must form rarely by
>>> random processes.
>>>
>>
>> That is, they should not predict different ordinary ("known") behavior
>> than what has been well-observed normally.
>>
>> The process of formation, from what's known about the FPHE, has not been
>> well-controlled. Whether it is "random" or not is speculation. It might be
>> quite predictable, but we haven't yet noticed how. We do have some clues,
>> and Ed has found some new evidence as to cracks.
>>
>> Looking for things predicted by theory is, in fact, a major function of
>> theory, its utility. To function this way, it is not necessary that the
>> theory be correct. If theory stimulates new observations, those
>> observations can tighten the conditions on theory formation. If
>> observations confirm the predictions of the theory, they do not necessarily
>> confirm the theory, certainly not as to all details.
>>
>> 2. What mechanism can drain the mass-energy away from a collection of
>>> hydrogen nuclei before the final nucleus is formed?
>>>
>>
>> Or after. Ed tends to reject the "after" as being impossible, but
>> "before" is equally impossible, if not more so. He does not here establish
>> the logical necessity for "after." Indeed, I'm unaware of it. The "draining
>> of energy," i.e. some process that results in either a gradual release of
>> energy, in small enough quanta to avoid the Hagelstein limit, or,
>> alternatively, some process that transfers the energy immediately to a
>> large mass, is necessary. The latter is considered impossible, routinely,
>> at the energies involved.
>>
>> It is not impossible, merely unlikely, and we must keep that in mind;
>> until we know what the mechanism is behind cold fusion, we cannot rule out
>> the "impossible," not entirely. But that is not necessarily the first place
>> we look, because an "impossible explanation" is almost no explanation at
>> all. We need a lot more data before we will accept such.
>>
>> And, this is my point, and the 2004 DoE review makes this clear, if we
>> assert theories considered impossible, the rejection of this will rub off
>> on *everything we present.*
>>
>> The final nucleus
>>> can be result from fusion or transmutation.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. Or fusion followed by fission, which is similar.
>>
>> This process must drain
>>> the energy in a way that produces some detectable photon radiation,
>>> but not enough to be consistent with the excess power.
>>>
>>
>> The "detectable photon radiation" is likely, perhaps, but unconfirmed.
>> The photon evidence, so far, is weak. Stating this as a logical necessity,
>> then, may be an error. Yes, the photon energy must not be large enough to
>> have a *large* impact on remaining heat. Some low-energy photons, though,
>> will be absorbed and the energy carried by them ends up as heat.
>>
>> I would expect detectable photon energy to be correlated with excess
>> power, however, at a particular time, under the same conditions. The ratio
>> could vary with specific conditions. By "consistent with power," Ed is
>> referring to photon energy that would carry most of the power, as wtih
>> gammas in normal d-d -> He-4 fusion.
>>
>> Correlation, though, is a different matter, something often missed in the
>> review of Miles et al, and reports that, say, tritium are not "correlated"
>> with excess heat. It seems highly unlikely that non-artifact tritium would
>> not be correlated with heat (unless the heat is in the noise). It is
>> certainly not "commensurate" with heat, i.e, at a predicted level from d+d
>> -> T + p. Far, far from it.
>>
>> This draining
>>> process must be complete before the final nucleus forms to avoid
>>> conflicts with the law of conservation of momentum.
>>>
>>
>> No. That's only one route. Yes, momentum must be conserved. Ed is, here,
>> falling into the same assumption as the skeptics, that is, that some other
>> mechanism is impossible. Yet dissipating energy before the state change
>> that releases the energy, at the levels involved, is more of a violation of
>> basic principles than some "unknown mechanism." operating under unknown
>> conditions, that allows either direct energy transfer to a larger mass
>> (lattice or cluster or condensate) or that stores the energy in a nuclear
>> excited state before release.
>>
>> Bottom line, we have no theory that clearly connects known physics with
>> the FP Heat Effect. And we don't have adequate evidence to propose a theory
>> that will be accepted, at this time. The approaches by Takahashi and others
>> are incomplete, but, at least, they attempt to use known physics.
>>
>> What is the function of proposing theories? As I pointed out in another
>> post today, it seems that we imagine that people will be more ilkely to
>> accept the experimental evidence for the FP Heat Effect -- and helium -- if
>> we present some "plausible theory." The actual effect of prsenting theory,
>> so far, has been clear: it doesn't work.
>>
>> There is only one rather narrow place where te pubic presentation of
>> theory is functional: that is when an effect has been confirmed, and it is
>> necessary to obtain funding to test the predictions of theory. That
>> exceptions exist in the history of science does not negatee this, as a
>> general principle. Cold fusion does not fit the exceptions, yet.
>>
>> The mechanism
>>> must logically explain how He4, tritium, and transmutation are
>>> produced without energetic radiation being detected.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, no. That's highly desirable, but not necessary. In the medium
>> term, I'm interested in theories that predict helium, found as the helium
>> is found, in the quantities found, and, in addition, the *levels* of excess
>> heat as correlated with observed experimental conditions. Predicting
>> anything else is gravy, not basic nutrition.
>>
>> A theory consistent with known physics that says nothing about tritium
>> and transmutations, but that accomplishes quantitative predictions, is the
>> number one theoretical goal. I expect that such a theory will *likely*, as
>> elaborated and explored, end up explaining the other observed effects, but
>> not necessarily. As must be pointed out, LENR opened up a new continent,
>> with new fauna. We tend to think that there must be only one new species,
>> but that is not logically necessary, and it isn't even Occam's Razor
>> necessary. That there could be more than one reaction is actually an Razor
>> hypothesis, very simple, and had this been kept in mind, a lot of the early
>> confusion over cold fusion evidence migth have been avoided. Read the
>> skeptical documents! They attempted to shoehorn every report into a Single
>> Effect, and when various reports seemed to conflict, they rejected the
>> *whole thing*.
>>
>> The mechanism
>>> must show a positive effect of temperature,
>>>
>>
>> Yes, almost certanly.
>>
>> must occur in a variety of
>>> materials including oxides,
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps, that's not been clearly established. Ed is now assuming, it
>> seems, that various reported effects are not artifact. They might not be,
>> indeed, it may even be unlikely in some cases that they are, but if we are
>> trying to reduce our explanations to the logical minimum, this is straying
>> outside of that.
>>
>> Basically, for whom is the essay intended? Different audiences will hold
>> different assumptions.
>>
>> must be sensitive to magnetic fields and
>>> laser light,
>>>
>>
>> Not established adequately. Maybe. Maybe not. Look, the Letts work with
>> lasers is quite interesting, and he appears to have seen a clear
>> correlation with magnetic fields, but *this work has not been replicated*
>> -- or only, at best, poorly replicated.
>>
>> and must be initiated using a variety of methods.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. However, it is not necessary that every method be included. One of
>> the assertable deficiencies in Miles -- it caused a lot of trouble, making
>> matters far less clear than if it had not been done -- was the appearance
>> of some excess heat without helium being found, in two measurements with a
>> PdCe cathode.
>>
>> Essentially, any confirmation of heat/helium, to be utterly conclusive,
>> should -- at least at first -- use only a single protocol, as precise as
>> possible. Adding in *any* extra variables can confuse correlations.
>>
>> Later, of course, similar analyses can be done with different protocols.
>> If two different protocols do produce the same result, that strengthens the
>> work. But they might produce different results, because *the mechanism may
>> differ in some way.*
>>
>> Cold fusion research tended to be shotgun in nature. Everyone tried
>> something different. After all, none of it worked particularly well, so why
>> not keep varying conditions, maybe we will hit the jackpot!
>>
>> However, the net result of this approach was a boatload of research with
>> no single replicable experiment to point to. There is only a little work
>> that *roughly* confirms other work.
>>
>> These
>>> requirements are created by observed behavior and severely limit the
>>> kind of mechanisms that are plausible.
>>>
>>
>> I'd say that, at this point, *no mechanism is plausable." Give up
>> "plausible"! But don't give it up by believing in something implausible.
>> *That will not fly.* Instead, firmly adhere to "we don't know."
>>
>> Until we do. It is highly likely that when we have enough data to form
>> sound theories, that they will be plausible, they will merely turn out to
>> be something not anticipated. Such as, for example, Bose-Einstein
>> Condensates at room temperature. I am *not* proposing that we "believe in"
>> such creatures. In fact, I'm suggesting that, with few exceptions, we not
>> *mention* them.
>>
>> I've seen what happens when I've presented BEC theories. They are
>> *rejected out of hand,* it's just like the Hekman report of what happened
>> in the 2004 DoE review. People start making sure that there is a clear path
>> to the exit, for, after all, I might be dangerous.
>>
>> If I'm going to mention such things at all, it had better be with a
>> framing symapthetic to the audience, i.e., "Well, this seems preposterous,
>> but...." And I'd better make sure that they get the experimental evidence,
>> why we would even bother to consider such preposterousness, *before* these
>> wild-hair ideas are presented.
>>
>> I have examined all the theories with these requirements in mind. My
>>> first conclusion is that the NAE cannot be created in the lattice
>>> itself without violating known facts about thermochemical behavior.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that's correct, but it's not necessarily wrong, either.
>> Inside this field, we are not in the same condition as the general
>> skeptical community. We do accept heat/helium -- most of us, and Krivit has
>> never understood the issues. Larsen accepts heat/helium, in fact, just at a
>> different ratio.
>>
>> Fusion simply doesn't happen as a "known thermochemical behavior."
>> Nuclear reactions could occur at a low rate, consistently with known
>> behavior, that represent apparent violations of thermodynamic principles,
>> but that aren't, and Ed and I have debated this ad nauseum.
>>
>> Ed has very sound reasons, however, to think that the reaction isn't
>> talking place in the lattice, and his arguments actually distract from that.
>>
>> This conclusion leaves gaps as the only plausible location. Gaps have
>>> the ability to form and host several types of clusters or structures.
>>>
>>
>> Probably. Very likely. Above, Ed listed the kinds of gaps. That was sound.
>>
>> Cracks are quite plausible. The truth might be some of each, i.e, some
>> combination of phenomena, or it might be only one. If it's only one, I'd
>> vote for cracks, myself, as the first place to look.
>>
>>
>> These structures need to be explored to discover how they can drain
>>> the mass-energy in a way that is consistent with requirement #2.
>>>
>>
>> I rather doubt that the structures themselves accomplish this. The
>> structures are chemical. The energies involved are tiny compared with the
>> mass-energy released. No, NAE creates X, and X handles the energy
>> distribution. It's not the NAE itself, and it's possible that there is more
>> than one type of NAE that might do it.
>>
>> This
>>> "draining" process represents the missing knowledge about nuclear
>>> interaction that cold fusion has revealed. I suggest the Nobel prize
>>> will be found in the explanation of this "draining" process.
>>>
>>
>> I tend to agree.
>>
>> So far, in cold fusion, there are two major accomplishments; the
>> discovery of anomalous heat in palladium deuteride by Pons and Fleischmann,
>> and the discovery of the heat/helium correlation by Miles et al. Others did
>> yeoman work to confirm these findings, the most central being all those
>> groups that measured both XP and helium.
>>
>> What is next, though, is probably not theory formation, not yet. We need
>> much more data. Collecting this data may sometimes be triggered by some
>> theory predicting this or that, but the key is *measurement* and *detailed
>> report.* As well, isolated investigations that only look for a single
>> result are intrinsically weak. Much as I love the SPAWAR neutron findings,
>> what is missing from that work is actually central: is there any
>> correlation between neutron counts and XP? And the *entire body of neutron
>> work* is a distracting side-show.
>>
>> Who in the world let Jones into the room in 2004? Was he there to
>> apologize for his misleading rejection of Miles in 2005 and 2008? Somehow I
>> rather doubt it.
>>
>> The minor evidences involve an audience in trying to figure out if
>> results at such low levels mean anything. It creates distracting internal
>> conversations -- or external debates -- about secondary effects, possible
>> artifacts, and on and on. The problem becomes, not the elephant in the
>> living room, but the flies attracted by elephant dung.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "CMNS" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to
>> cmns+unsubscribe@googlegroups.**com<cmns%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/**group/cmns?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en>
>> .
>> For more options, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>
