On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The W-L theory is correct in its basic assumption about the
underlying causation of LENR, that is, charge concentration.
Li-battery problem is a possible manifestation of this basic
causation.
In nature, whenever charge concentration manifests, no matter what
the cause, LENR may occur.
Dark mode lightning produces gamma rays, laser stimulation of gold
nano-particles causes extreme enhancement of alpha decay.
Nuclear reactions in space happen as a result of interaction
energies as little as 10 ev because of charge concentrations.
I presented experiments that demonstrate this causation to Ed Storms
with no apparent impact.
Ken Shoulders has shown how nuclear waste is stabilized using charge
concentration.
Electrically Exploding metal foils produce transmutation.
LeClair shows transmutation using cavatation where charge
concentration occurs and this still does not impress Ed.
Cavatation also stabilizes nuclear waste through charge concentration.
Ed admits that if enough charge is concentrated, LENR would result
but says that charge concentration cannot happen. But very many
experiments in Nanoplasmonics have shown that EMF enhancement of up
to a trillion times can be produced in nanoparticles.
But Axil, when charge is concentrated by any method, hot fusion
results. This is what is observed, not what is imagined.
Rossi says he spent 6 months optimizing the shape of his
nanoantennas on the surface of his micro particles. Ed did not do
this in his Rossi replication attempt but after his results are
negative says that what Rossi has done is impossible.
You make a huge assumption here. I did modify the Ni in accordance
with the Rossi claims. I did not say what Rossi did was impossible.
You need to read more carefully. I said that I did not produce extra
heat when I attempted to follow Rossi's method.
Maybe Rossi has done something very important that you did not do?
Obviously this is true, but what? Until this question can be
answered, we know nothing about Rossi's claims.
Ed Storms
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
I find these discussions about LENR to be an amazing example of how
people can have beliefs that are in direct conflict with each other
and even with reality itself. Let me give two examples.
First, most people believe Rossi is a fraud and cannot be believed,
but they will nevertheless believe him when he claims his heat
results from transmutation of Ni. They believe him when he claims Cu
is the result and now when Fe is suggested. Yet, absolutely no
evidence exists for these claims. Nevertheless, long and detailed
discussions result.
Second, materials of all kinds have been subjected to conditions
having a huge range of values. Temperature from near absolute zero
to millions of degrees have been used. Pressures from vacuum to
those at the center of the earth have been applied. Yet, nuclear
reactions are not initiated, except when a very rare condition is
present. Scientists rightly have concluded that chemical conditions
cannot cause a nuclear reaction and for very good reasons.
Nevertheless, discussions here pretend that this experience does not
exist. People suggest and seriously discuss how a nuclear reaction
might be initiated without any concern for this huge experience.
As Robin succinctly summarizes "It surprises me that it doesn't
happen more often." My surprise is that this statement even needs
to be made. I know that reality has creased to exist in the
political world, but is this also true in science as discussed on
the internet. Yes, we do not know everything about Nature, but we
know a lot. Yes, new ideas are useful and fun, but must they have no
relationship to what has been discovered over centuries?
As Lou suggests, we need a method that produces the effect reliably.
This goal is being sought but it must be based on a useful
understanding of the process. A useful understanding must be based
on what has been observed and how we now know Nature to function.
Unless these two requirements are applied, the effort to get this
understanding becomes a waste of time. Without the understanding,
trial and error becomes the only available experimental method. So,
please make a serious effort to add to the understanding.
Ed Storms
On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:27 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Do you mean fires > 5000 degree(F)?
Strange that they happen at all.
Rather than doing thousands of tests on alternate designs to find
one which
has no failures over the testing phase, it would be better if they
could
find the cause by replicating it reliably, to establish with
certainty the
chemistry/physics behind the failures.
mixent wrote:
It surprises me that it doesn't happen more often. ;)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
