Ed Storms stated: “ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.”
In the last few years, material scientist has developed materials that are game changing in how matter behaves. These new materials are called topological materials. In these materials, physical processes can be engineered to behave in a manner that conflicts with common sense. The rules of process behavior in material are now relative to the material itself and not absolute. You cannot assume an absolute rule for material behavior in this modern age. On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not > very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent > with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and > chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified. > Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined. > This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The > interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does > not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would > occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been > observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion, > but to what end? We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas > that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF > behaves? Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and > observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on. > > Ed Storms > > > > On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire". > Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced. > > starting a fire with hand drill > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA > > Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs > > Harry > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not >> invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be >> shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the >> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible >> to understand. Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest, >> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be >> true. Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the >> observed behavior. A reader will have to decide for themselves which >> possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such >> details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are >> given, a counter argument can always be provided. >> >> I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe >> and gave your reasons. That is all we can do. >> >> Ed Storms >> On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> Ed Storms states: >> >> *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission >> at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and >> alpha emission are not related.”* >> >> This could be a false assumption as follows: >> >> When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to >> the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to >> penetrate the surface of the CR-39. >> >> In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very >> low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed. >> >> This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the >> lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their >> associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear >>> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction >>> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown >>> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur. >>> >>> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at >>> a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha >>> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the >>> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source? >>> >>> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This >>> helium does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates. >>> Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question >>> is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are >>> trying to answer. If you want to answer the question of where the alpha >>> comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission >>> is clearly not related to CF. >>> >>> And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes >>> alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is >>> too improbable to be seriously considered. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >>> >>> Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to >>>> conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the >>>> alpha particle flux when there is excess heat. >>>> >>> >>> I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do >>> not know whether there was heat. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
