Thanks Ed for this quick compilation of the facts to consider. It is helpful
to focus upon the observations that drive any new theories.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: cmns <c...@googlegroups.com>; vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 12:41 pm
Subject: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Iperiodically have to start over with this discussion because the
responseprovided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear
conclusions areno longer possible. In addition, a clearer understanding
results fromthese discussions and this needs to be examined without the
distraction created by theearlier discussion.
Thephenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to guide a
modeland were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These features are:
1.The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as energetic
particles, asis the normal case by nuclear reactions and hot fusion in
particular.
2.The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and difficult
toreplicate in the laboratory.
3.The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience with the
hot fusion process.
4.The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain solids.
5.The process does not require applied energy to be initiated although
extraenergy will increase its rate.
Thesefeatures do not need additional demonstration or experimental detail to
beaccepted as real by a knowledgeable observer.
Thechallenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not conflict
withwhat is known about "conventional" nuclear reactions and isconsistent with
what is observed. The need for such an explanation, eventhought it is
incomplete, flows from the fact that this phenomenon is toocomplex to
investigate successfully using trial and error. In fact, allexperiments in
science are guided at some level by an explanation, which issometimes informal
and based on current observed behavior but more often isbased on established
laws of Nature. The best model is the one that isconsistent with the largest
number of observations and makes accuratepredictions about previously unseen
behavior. These models are notdesigned to or are required to justify belief
that the phenomenon called LENR is real. Theyare required to guide effective
research that might eventually provide therequired justification for
acceptance.
To dothis, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must beconsistent
with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical systemsin which the LENR
effect occurs. Agreeing on which assumptions areconsistent with the required
rules (laws) and which are not has been the basiccause of conflict and argument
about the proposed models.
Beforelisting the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several nuclear
processesand reactions can occur in a material at the same time. For the
discussion tobe clear, we need to focus on only one reaction at a time.
Initially thediscussion will focus on the most active reaction that results in
themajor amount of detected heat energy.
Severalmodels propose processes other than fusion. These models involve either
creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized form in the material.
The resulting neutrons then interactwith nuclei to form the observed nuclear
products. This discussion is notfocused on this claim other than to note that
the observed behavior is notconsistent with this process and many parts of the
model conflict with basiclaws of nature. Therefore, this path will not be
explored here. The present discussionfocuses only on fusion of hydrons as the
process called LENR.
Threebasic processes have to occur at the same location and at the same time.
No significant delay may separate thesethree events. These events are:
A. Twoor more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same time in the
material.
B. Twoor more hydrons must overcome the Coulomb barrier separating them.
C. The resulting reduction inmass-energy must be converted to heat-energy.
Thebasic assumptions used here are:
1. Thebehavior involves only one basic mechanism that occurs at the same
basiclocation in the active material being examined.
2. The nuclear process can involve any isotope of hydrogen.
3. The entire process must be consistent with all known laws of physics and
chemistry, although gaps in knowledge are accepted.
The above assumptions and observed behavior alone allow auseful model to be
proposed. To start the process, the location of the nuclearprocess in the
material must be identified. I call this location, the NuclearActive
Environment (NAE). Consequently, a new assumption is introduced that says:
The NAE is a new physical structure having no connection through quantum
mechanical processes or the laws of thermodynamics with the atoms that
form the lattice structure.
This assumption eliminates a number of proposed models fromconsideration,
which is discussed later.
I have explained previously why I propose that the nuclearreaction occurs in
cracks of a critical size, so I will not repeat this argumenthere. Once the
crack forms, thethree basic processes (A, B, C above) must take place in this
structure. The model now must describe how thisseries of events happens.
First,the hydons that are present in the surrounding lattice as H+ or D+ must
enterthe crack and create a structure that is able to reduce the
coulombbarrier. The only way this processhas been seen to occur is either by
applying enough kinetic energy to force thetwo nuclei together (hot fusion) or
by insertion of a muon between two D. Both methods produce the typical
andexpected energetic particles. Useof ion bombardment has revealed that the
electrons normally present in amaterial are able to reduce the magnitude of the
Coulomb barrier for theconventional hot fusion process. Consequently, the
logical implication is that electrons are alsoinvolved in the LENR process, but
in a different way. Regardless of their involvement, the Coulomb
reductionprocess must take place in a manner to allow the mass-energy to be
releasedgradually in small quanta before the fusion process is complete.
Otherwise, ifmass-energy remains in the final structure, it must result in
gamma emission tobe consistent with known behavior. At this point in the model,
we are faced with a dilemma. What process canbe proposed that satisfies the
observed behavior but does not conflict withknown and accepted concepts in
physics? All of the proposed models are faced with this dilemma while
attempting tosolve the problem different ways. The only question is which of
the proposedmethods (theories) provides the most logical description of
observed behaviorand best predictions, because they all contain the consequence
of thisdilemma. Can we focus thediscussion on this dilemma?
Ed
