Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby.
This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is what I am expecting to cause the difference. The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea some attention. 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 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III 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?
