Axil, I agree that the nanostructures (whiskers, filaments, voids, etc.) that may form in these battery environments conceivably could generate surprisingly strong localized electric and/or magnetic fields - due to charge concentrations or extreme current densities, albeit on the nanoscale.
Some of the papers reporting successful LENR results could be explained by this - unless a lot of measurement errors are responsible. No matter which theory (if any) is correct, the Barron's article does not lead one to believe that the cause of the battery failures has been definitively identified. -- Lou Pagnucco 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. > > 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. > > Maybe Rossi has done something very important that you did not do? > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Edmund Storms > <stor...@ix.netcom.com>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, pagnu...@htdconnect.com 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<http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
