On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to
determine the magnitude of the source of energy? I realize that he
saw individual flashes, but how powerful was each one? Is it
possible to prove that each flash was at a level consistent with the
energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of
technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they
have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected
during the event.
Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior.
Nevertheless, this is enough to show that individual events are
contributing to an average that is measured as heat.
You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have
been involved in what we call "Blue Sky Thinking" where people
freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know
that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas
are not immediately negatively criticized by the other
participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions
which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended
to offer?
Yes, but it helps if the thinking is based on some connection to
reality. I can also think of all kinds of novel ideas, but the goal is
to actually make progress in seeing reality. Giving ideas at random
is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Yes, you can make
some interesting moves, but you will not win the game.
It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited
by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a
working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail
without exception, there is room for wild speculation.
This was true in 1989, but not now. Would you speculate to a doctor
about how the gall bladder functions or to Boeing Inc. how the
airplane actually works? Perhaps these are extreme examples, but my
suggestion is to learn something first.
One day, someone will generate that theory from the collection of
evidence where all the pieces will fit together perfectly.
Ed, you have a pretty good theory but there are still others in
contention. Do you consider your theory as iron clad at this time?
I have identified certain aspects a successful theory must have. I
have not provided all the details yet. The only way a theory can be
judged is by how effectively it explains what is observed. My theory
is more effective in doing this than any other. This only means that
it is on the right tract. I'm only show where the gold is buried, not
how to dig or why it is present at that location. That information
comes later.
If so, I understand why you want to ensure that noise coming from
other directions does not misdirect the understanding of how LENR
behaves.
I object to the "noise" as you say only because it is a distraction
from hearing what is being sought, rather like listening to music
while a friend constantly talks.
My question above is important to answer and if you are absolutely
confident that each fusion reaction is of only a single pair of D's
that is randomly occurring and disconnected please let me know.
That tiny bit of knowledge is vital to my understanding.
Have you read my papers? I explain exactly what I think is occurring.
Evidence exists that there is connection between individual events
which just popped into my mind. You have stated that the effect is
temperature dependent as we believe which implies that each energy
release adds heat to the system leading to more of the same.
No, temperature dependence only means that one controlling part of the
process is endothermic, i.e. it requires energy to occur. This
requirement results from basic laws of thermodynamics.
This is correlated in time. Now, how fast does the energy released
by each reaction dissipate among the NAE? There most likely exists
a relaxation time during which the energy becomes spread throughout
the material. Would it not seem likely that the nearby NAE would be
effected much more strongly than those far removed? The density of
NAE that are present within a region of the metal could be a major
indication of the magnitude of energy released due to this
interaction.
You are describing thermal behavior, which is a well known and
understood process that has no relationship to the source of heat. My
theory does not care what happens to the heat once the photons are
formed because the heat energy results from the photons being absorbed
by the surrounding material by well know processes. CF follows normal
rules up to a critical stage and again follows normal rules after this
stage. The question is, What happens during this unknown stage in the
process? This is where I suggest you apply your ideas.
Ed
You might want to consider how this effect could fit into your theory.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You pose an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads
to an increase in the number of NAE that form due to its
interaction with the metal. Who knows?
If enough helium forms, this will certainly be true. However, this
requires the effect run for a long time without this aid.
I have long wondered if evidence exists for a limited chain
reaction of some sort since some of the earlier surface pictures
appeared to demonstrate explosive crater formations.
Two kinds of surface effects occur. Some are caused by material
depositing from an impure electrolyte at the site of H2 loss from a
crack. Others are caused by local melting produced by a very high
concentration of NAE. These two types are easy to separate.
Perhaps Ed or someone has seen very strong evidence that each LENR
event is entirely independent of the next one and limited in scale
to just one helium formation. Is anyone aware of evidence in
support to this hypothesis?
The local areas flash off and on in apparently random ways, as been
seen and measured by Szpak et al.
I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required
before another can be initiated. Perhaps our favorite spark plug
in the form of a cosmic ray deposits the secret ingredient that
then allows for the follow up LENR action. No one could doubt that
a cosmic ray has sufficient energy to trigger a small nuclear
fusion reaction. We need to be careful not to automatically reject
such a nuclear event as being inconsistent since no high energy
radiation is evident. I would contend that a cosmic ray represents
a very high level of high energy radiation by itself.
Before you speculate too much, Dave, you really need to understand
all that has been discovered and observed. I spent 23 years doing
this, so my model is not based on casual ideas.
Ed
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Breed <p...@rasdoc.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
>The fusion process has a beginning and an ending. It is not
continuous. Once the He forms, the reaction must stop until the He
leaves the site and more D takes its place.
Has anyone melted a working cathode to see if it contains any
trapped He?
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its
a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He
a way to escape to the surface?
