Under my theory of LENR it may be possible to setup a single nuclear active site for observation and measure what goes on inside that volume in detail. The experiment involves setting up a quantum dot with a 600 electron storage capacity constructed in a way to enclose the electron ensemble in nickel walls with the entirety of the device surrounded by a pressurized hydrogen atmosphere. A Pd/D system can be setup in like manner. Cheers: Axil
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Well Dave, your description might affect local regions. If the > concentration of NAE is too high, a runaway effect might occur locally and > cause local melting, which would kill the effect at that location. > Nevertheless, the heat is not created only at the site of the reaction. The > reaction produces photons that have a range in matter before they lose > their energy as heat. The net result is complicated because the energy > from one NAE site is absorbed throughout the material thanks to the photon > flux. We only have the ability to measure the average temperature and the > average power, although local heating can be detected as brief bursts of > increased temperature and local melting. > > Ed > > > On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:47 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > 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? > > > > > > > > >
