Axil,
Nice theory! Can you build on it or tie it back into your
plasmonics posit? I always liked wet cells from a neo Julian Schwinger
concept of sonoluminescence where the meniscus became the suppression plates
of a collapsing Casimir geometry such that trapped gasses were exposed to a
dynamic value of suppression, producing self destructive energies we see as the
dark blue light given off during collapse. You seem to be suggesting that the
plasma and solid geometries can be forming similar structures, A metal rain
would form dynamic cavities just like bubbles in sono fusion without the self
quenching heat sinking effect of a totally liquid medium. I can see gas plasma
caught in these cracks during such a "rain storm" being effected equivalent to
backfilling a cavity but, what makes the cavity reform? Is it natural for a
catalyst to just keep creating pockets? You definitely seem to be on to
something and would love to see you put the pieces together.
Fran
From: Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable
cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in the
metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in the same
way that rain renews water in a puddle.
I believe this is what the secret chemical additive does in the Ni/H reactors.
A heat source in the reactor produces a metal rain of nano-drops that falls on
the surface of micro particles.
Whereas a crack in solid metal pits and becomes useless in time, these metal
drops evaporate and reform in another location on the surface of the lattice.
They redeposit somewhere else refreshed and renewed. The physical processes
that happen in a crack in palladium and the alkali metal nano-drops are the
same but the nano-drops are formed more readily and reliably and are
self-renewing.
This need for alkali metal drop formation is usually meet by the inclusion of a
potassium salt in a LERN experiment.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made on
purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible. Nevertheless,
these gaps have to be made using the known laws even though once created, a new
phenomenon is initiated. This requirement also applies to the new materials you
describe. They will be created using the known laws even though once created,
they will have unusual properties. This same requirement applies to all aspects
of materials science and has resulted in the unusual materials we presently
enjoy. They were not made by imagining the need for "magic powers". The known
and conventional laws of chemistry were used to create the materials in most
cases. The only question of importance is: What has to be created to initiate
CF? Unless you can answer this question, you do not know what you need to
make. So, please focus on this question.
Ed Storms
On May 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
