On Feb 24, 2013, at 6:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
OK, I think I understand what you are describing after your detailed
explanation. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears as though
you are assuming that a random collection of individual events is
leading to the crater formation and hot spots. This is a possible
cause and might indeed be the final explanation. I see that you are
still considering that the energy from each reaction is in the form
of photons mainly which can penetrate fairly deeply into the
metal. The heat is released when the photons are absorbed at some
remote location.
Correct
That is what I remember you stating a few days ago. I countered
with a slightly different concept as I was discussing blue sky
thinking. I envision that the heat does not appear far removed from
the reaction and therefore results in a large elevation to the
temperature in the very nearby NAE. On many occasions a random
fusion occurs at one of your sites that does not cause adjacent
sites to significantly accelerate their activity. The probability
of interaction instead is directly related to the density of NAE
within the region according to my hypothesis. I see now how this
differs from your process since it appears that each of your
reactions proceeds slowly and there would not be a large
concentration of heat energy to diffuse.
I think we have a combination of what you describe and my
description. The photons are absorbed as they move from the source.
The greatest heat is produced near the source with the energy release
dropping off with distance. Consequently, some local heating will
occur where the photon flux is greatest.
Do you think that the heating due to random addition of the events
would be sufficient to cause the cratering and hot spots? I am not
sure about how many of these random happenings would have to be
coincident for the release of sufficient heat energy to form one of
those craters.
The melted spots are rare. Most apparent craters are not from this
cause, as I said. Most result from deposited impurities.
The appearance reminds me more of an explosion of some sort instead
of a simple melting of the material.
Please read:
Nagel, D., Characteristics and Energetics of Craters in LENR
Experimental Materials J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 10. 1-14 (2013)
These craters you describe are from deposition of impurity.
I suspect that a cone type shape does not originate from random
melting of a bulk of material although I may be wrong. And the dept
of the initial cone tip seems out of range for liquid metal to
originate. These are the problems that I encounter when attempting
to explain the size and shape of the end products.
You need to consider that several sources of apparent craters are
possible.
If you think of the reaction as being a form of chain reaction then
the shapes make more sense. There will generally be a single random
triggered fusion reaction within the metal. These must be
occurring for the device to initially generate excess heat. If, as
I suspect, the adjacent NEA sites become triggered themselves then
more heat is added to the mix. An interesting observation comes to
light. Since the resulting structure has a cone shape, the
suggestion becomes that the energy is released in that shape from
each reaction. This cone of energy spreads outward from initiation
and encounters additional NAE in its path. Many of these become
triggered in some manner and the energy from them adds to the
resulting cone shaped energy wave. We would need to understand what
process could lead to a cone shaped energy release if my hypothesis
has any likelihood of success.
David, you are over thinking this process and ignoring much of what
has to happen for any melting to occur. Consider that a large number
of cracks form in one place. The fusion is then controlled by how fast
the D can get to this region, which is determined by temperature and
concentration of D in the surrounding PdD. The cracks start to produce
energy slowly and the local area heats up, as seen by the flashes
measured by Szpak et. al. The local area gets hotter, the D diffuses
more rapidly, and the flash rate increases while becoming more intense
each time. Finally, the flash creates a local temperature that
exceeds the melting point of the alloy on the surface, which has a
value significantly below that of Pd. This melting causes a sudden
release of gas that blows the liquid away. Yes, the sites interact,
but through local temperature and diffusion. Because this local region
can be less than a square micron in size, the description has to take
the conditions present on this scale into account. On this scale, the
surface is very complex.
I need to consider how shaped charges behave to clarify my
understanding of how my assumed process proceeds. Someone in vortex
my already have that knowledge and their input would be welcome.
Should I also look into the path that a high speed projectile takes
when it penetrates a solid material? The shockwave emanating from
one of these tends to take the form of the craters.
Well Ed, I see that your current theory and my hypothesis do not
quite merge together as a whole. If there is a way to speed up your
reactions and get them to cooperate with their neighbors then that
might become possible.
I see no basic difference. We are only nitpicking about details.
Ed
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: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:06 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, I have been looking at the craters that have formed upon the
surface of some of the earlier active experiments. Also, Axil
supplied a fine link that demonstrated hot spots being formed upon
the surface of another system. I can run down the picture
reference if you wish, but I suspect that you are aware of these
from previous studies. Let me know.
I have seem all of this information.
The big question is whether or not a single fusion event is capable
of doing this degree of damage and creating the relatively large
heating associated with hot spots.
Dave, I see no question here. A single event CAN NOT do any damage.
This is easy to show. The melting occurs only when the random
collection of active sites exceeds a critical concentration in a
local region, as I explain in detail below.
It is well established that temperature does effect the LENR
systems in a positive manner. Elevated metal temperature is
required to obtain any significant LENR and it is apparent that the
higher the temperature of a device such as the ECAT, the more heat
is produced.
Yes
My hypothesis can be proven wrong if it can be shown that there is
no change in the quantity of energy released per larger event
regardless of the density of NAE that are active in the material.
So, if all of the craters can be formed by one or at most a couple
of simultaneous fusion reactions, or the amount of heat appearing
at the hot spots is only due to one, then each is unrelated. Here
I refer to a fusion reaction as being due to the formation of one
ash product instead of a chain of events due to the heating.
Does this suggest that you now accept the coupling hypothesis? I
recall that earlier you stated that each fusion event proceeded to
completion and was not related to the others.
I need to be more clear here. Millions of suitable cracks are
present in an active material. Each one of these cracks supports a
series of fusion reactions. The process starts by D accumulating and
forming the required structure in the crack. The structure resonates
until all energy is lost and the He forms. The He diffuses away and
is replaced by D, and the process repeats. The total cycle time
might be a few seconds for each active site. The sites are cycling
in random sequence and the total power is the average of them all.
No single site can produce enough energy to make any local change or
even to be detected. However, if by random chance a large number of
sites are close together, this can release enough power to cause
melting when all the cycles in this area scrutinize to a sufficient
amount. If this happens, all active sites in this region are
destroyed and further energy production at this local region stops.
When I first mentioned this idea you did not express a positive
opinion of its merits. It is good that we can now agree that this
might be happening and should be an addition to the original theory.
My opinion was that I could see no benefit to using this process to
explain anything - other than the explanation I had already imagined
as I describe above.
One thing that needs to be clarified is that I am not speaking of
the average temperature of the metal matrix in this description.
That might be what you refer to as local. I am addressing the
instantaneous large spike that occurs and which diffuses into the
average background temperature with time. There is a large
difference between the two.
You need to realize that the energy is not felt by the system as
heat until the photons are absorbed. Most of these photons leave the
sample and make heat in the electrolyte or in the wall of the
container. Very little is absorbed locally at the active crack. As
I said, the process of heat formation is complex. The individual
active sites only experience the ambient temperature. Local
temperature at each site will be slightly greater than the average,
but not excessive unless the concentration of sites at that local
area is very high.
Is this clearer.
Ed
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: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
Dave, what behavior of LENR can only be explained by proposing
coupling between the NAE sites? Of course, coupling is expected
based on local temperature and a photon flux. What more do you
propose?
Ed
On Feb 24, 2013, at 2:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Robin,
The net energy released by a single fusion reaction is measured in
the MeV, not eV. That is why I believe that there is a mutual
interaction between individual NAE. The local heat energy release
is large and can not escape the area except through diffusion
which is a slow process compared to the reaction time associated
with nuclear effects.
This should behave much like raising the local temperature by many
degrees Kelvin which should encourage reactions by nearby NAEs if
we assume a positive temperature coefficient for LENR.
Ed's theory handles activity at a single NAE that he states will
continue until completion. My suggested addition is a system
level coupling that will now explain other observations. When an
addition improves a theory, it should be incorporated into an
improved one. Now we can consider the behavior of a device
exhibiting LENR as being composed of two different type of
responses. The first is the original one where NAE generate
copious amounts of energy as the elements within fuse. The
addition explains craters and hot spots which are hypothesized to
be associated with the density of the NAE sites.
So far there has been no evidence that coupling does not exist
between NAE and a couple of good examples that suggest that this
is happening. We should seek out unusual behavior that does not
meet expected performance and attempt to explain the discrepancy.
Do you know of any evidence that coupling between active regions
does not exist?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:26:37
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>You ask several questions at the same time. The LENR process
requires
>energy to overcome a slight energy barrier present within the
overall
>process. Consequently, it has a positive temperature effect. In
other
>words, some energy is required to initiate each fusion event. Once
>initiated, each fusion reaction goes on without any more help and
>releases its energy. Consequently, the initiation reaction will
>become faster, the more energy that is applied in any form. This
>energy can take the form of increased temperature, laser light,
RF or
>any other source that can couple to the rate limiting reaction.
The
>important information comes from identifying the rate limiting
step so
>that the extra energy can be applied more effectively. This
requires a
>theory.
At the temperature increases common in LENR experiments, the
amount of heat
energy added is only a tiny fraction of an eV. The theory that
best matches this
is Hydrinos, because a tiny fraction of an eV is all that is
needed to match the
difference in energy between the "energy hole" of Hydrinos, and
the "energy
hole" provided by many common catalysts.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
