Harry, it is impossible to apply energy to an alpha unless another
particle is involved. You can not propose having energetic alpha
emission without also identifying this other particle. Basic laws can
not be ignored just because CF is a strange phenomenon.
An alpha is normally emitted from this second particle (i.e. the
decaying nucleus). When helium is made by fusion, the second particle
is an energetic gamma, which carries away most of the energy. This
energetic gamma is not emitted during CF. Therefore, the helium cannot
be propose to have high energy unless another particle, which is not
detected, is identified. Takahashi proposes to form Be8 that
fragments after emitting the extra energy as gamma. However, this idea
has no experimental support. The other theories do not propose
energetic helium is produced. If you want to make a contribution, you
need to take these facts into account.
Ed Storms
On May 11, 2013, at 2:24 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Ed,
I suggested two analogies with the videos
1) alphas trigger the reaction like a spark triggering a fire.
As you point out this analogy is difficult to square with
observations.
2) alphas are like smoke accompanying a fire. Depending on the
conditions there can be lots of smoke with little fire (heat), or
lots of fire (heat) with little smoke.
This analogy is consistent with observations.
harry
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> 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
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> 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
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> 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 <eric.wal...@gmail.com> 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
