I my view, heat and/or the application of pulsed electric current are/is an indispensable ingredient in the LENR reaction. Do you agree?
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Let's start from a different viewpoint. I would like to find out from Tom > and other people whether their approach can be applied to my approach. I'm > trying to explain what is common to all approaches, which might be > combined, and where they are different and might need to be modified. > > I proposed, as does everyone, that a new structure is required to form in > PdD, for example, in order to initiate mass-energy conversion because no > conventional chemical structure can do this. Each of the proposed theories > identifies some kind of change, but each one is different. The proposed > structure is given different names and different properties, but the goal > is the same. We are all trying to solve the same problem by proposing > different mechanisms and we place these structures at different locations > within the material. I'm trying to find some agreement we all can live with. > > No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST follow > known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a normal > chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical structure. No idea > can be accepted if it violates basic chemical rules no matter how much QM > is applied or how complex the mathematical justification. No idea will be > accepted if it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example. Can we > agree on this basic requirement?? > > I choose the crack as the location of this transformation because creation > of such a novel structure can not take place in the lattice itself without > violating these rules, which I have explained previously. This conclusion > is important and BASIC to understanding LENR. People have to stop trying to > fit their structure into the lattice. Using the lattice as the location is > the major flaw in the theories. This requirement MUST be resolved because > no agreement exists at the present time. > > Eventually, I will examine ALL the proposed models with respect to this > requirement, but right now I would like to show how my model fits this > requirement. I propose a large molecule must form from hydrons, which other > people have called a cluster. I simply add more details about how this > structure can be created based on conventional concepts. Most other models > ignore the formation process. > > Such a molecule can form between hydrons if the normal s electron can be > promoted to the p level. This promotion cannot occur in the normal lattice > because the p level has more energy than does the s level. On the other > hand, a crack of suitable size can promote the s state electron to the p > state as a result of the intense negative charge on the walls of the crack. > This should be easy to justify using QM calculations, which I suggest Tom > explore. > > This promotion would allow many D to be coupled together in a string. At > this point in the model, conventional bond behavior is described. The only > novel feature is the ability of the charge on the walls of the crack to > promote the election to the next quantum level. Nevertheless, the > structure contains all the features required to start the mass-energy > conversion, i.e. many hydrons coupled together by electrons and a physical > form that can resonate. The only question remaining, Is this structure > sufficient to initiate mass-energy conversion? > > The basic question is, Which structure being proposed as the mechanism for > the mass-energy conversion process is correct? Each of the structures has > flaws and limitations we each can identify in the other models, but not > perhaps not in our own. Can we agree that the structure most likely to be > correct and certainly the most useful one will explain the greatest number > of observations? Also, no proposed structure can be tested unless the > conditions causing its formation can be created in real materials. Purely > mathematical models applied to ideal materials, I suggest, can be rejected > immediately. > > Can we discuss and agree about any of these conclusions? > > Ed > > >
