Dear Mr Storms, Does Kozima laws inspire you something?
(I've naively commented http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?244-Theory-Kozima-3-Laws-in-the-CF-Phenomenon&highlight=kozima) kozima article <http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperr/paperr31.pdf>(extended version <http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperr/paperr15.pdf>) do you identify interesting points, and weakess ? the approach seems similar to what you propose... *Abstract* > There have been discovered three empirical laws in the CFP; > (1) The First Law: the stability effect for nuclear transmutation > products, > (2) the Second Law; the inverse power dependence of the frequency on the > intensity of the excess heat production, and > (3) the Third Law: bifurcation of the intensity of events (neutron > emission and excess heat production) in time. There are two corollaries of > the first law: > Corollary 1-1: Production of a nuclide A’Z+1X’ from a nuclide AZX in the > system. > Corollary 1-2: Decay time shortening of unstable nuclei in the system. > These laws and the necessary conditions for the CFP tell us that the cold > fusion phenomenon is a phenomenon belonging to complexity induced by > nonlinear interactions between agents in the open and nonequilibrium CF > systems as far as we assume a common cause for various events in the CFP, > i.e. excess heat production, neutron emission, and nuclear transmutation. > The characteristics of the CF materials for the CFP are investigated using > our knowledge of the microscopic structure of the CF materials consulting > to the complexity in relation to the three laws explained above. > A computer simulation is proposed to reproduce an essential feature of the > CFP using a simplified model system (a super-lattice) composed of two > interlaced sublattices; one sublattice of host nuclei with extended neutron > wavefunctions and another of proton/deuterons with non-localized > wavefunctions. 2013/2/19 Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > > On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic paths. >> People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any idea that >> comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can look for the overall >> patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to do the latter. As is the >> case with any complex process, logic demands that the various parts have a >> definite relationship to each other. For example, to make an automobile >> function, a power source has to be coupled to a gear box through a >> mechanism that isolates the engine from the wheels. The exact design is not >> important at this level of understanding. However, to simplify the >> description, general features of each part are frequently described. At >> this stage in the process of understanding, it is pointless to argue >> whether the engine is 4 or 6 cylinders or about the color of the car. >> >> I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their >> required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This behavior >> has several basic features as follows: >> >> 1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D. >> 2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission using D >> and H. >> 3. The process is very sensitive to the nature of the material in which >> it occurs. >> 4. The process works using any isotope of hydrogen. >> >> Many details add support and can be used to evaluate suggested >> mechanisms, but are not required to define the basic process. In addition, >> this process of evaluation requires a basic knowledge of science and >> agreement that the LENR process must follow known rules of behavior in >> chemical systems. Unfortunately, ignorance of these conventional rules >> seems to be so common that this discussion keeps being deflected from a >> useful path. Can we at least agree about the basic behavior that needs to >> be explained and the basic rules that need to be obeyed? Perhaps other >> people would be willing to suggest the rules they think are important - or >> no rules if they think LENR occurs outside of normal scientific >> understanding. >> >> Once a logical connection is proposed, this connection does not allow the >> parts to be change arbitrarily. For example, individual parts of the models >> proposed by Takahashi, Kim, or Hagelstein cannot be modified without >> producing conflicts in the logical structure. In other words, all parts >> have to be accepted in each model if the basic model is to be accepted. A >> person is not free to pick the part they like and reject the rest. The >> Takahashi model requires a cluster of 4 deuterons to form and fuse to make >> Be8, the Kin model requires a BEC to form that can lower the barrier and >> dissipate nuclear energy as many scattered deuterons, the Hagelstein model >> requires metal atom vacancies be present and be filled with deuterons that >> can vibrate and lose their energy as phonons. In this same way, my theory >> requires gaps be present that are filled with a resonating structure that >> dissipates energy as photons. All of the models, many of which I have not >> used as examples, contain essential assumptions, many of which conflict >> with normal expectations. The only question needing answer is, Which >> theory is more likely to correctly describe LENR and which, based on its >> internal logic, explains the greatest number observations and can make the >> most useful predictions. Can we answer this question without using nit >> picking? >> >> Ed >> >> >> >
