Peter, you acknowledge a basic and fundamental question. Are all
variations of LENR caused by the same phenomenon or a combination of
phenomenon? Hot fusion can obviously be created by fractofusion,
which can happen at the same time as LENR. Consequently, we can
identify at least two independent phenomenon that can occur at the
same time and produce confusing effects. What other possibilities of
independent phenomenon producing the same detected behavior can be
suggested while meeting the following requirements?
LENR, by definition, involves nuclear reactions being initiated
without applying significant energy. This means a method exists in
nature to overcome the Coulomb barrier without using brute force, as
is the usual method. We also know that this new method very seldom
occurs. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that ordinary material
must be changed in some way before the nuclear reaction can occur.
This change (creation of the NAE) needs to be identified and shown how
it is produced in all successful LENR studies and why it is so rare.
When LENR occurs, radiation, heat energy, and various nuclear products
are formed. The second unique feature is the absence of energetic
radiation. This means the huge amount of nuclear energy is
communicated to the material as heat energy in a novel way. This
novel mechanism must be combined with the ability to overcome the
barrier. These two unique aspects of LENR cannot operate separately
because all functions of a nuclear process must take place in the same
place at the same time.
Please think carefully about this last sentence because many theories
completely ignore this requirement. The process of overcoming the
Coulomb barrier and the immediate release of mass-energy MUST occur as
a result of the same basic mechanism operating in the same place at
the same time. If a method to overcome the barrier is proposed, a
method to release the energy must be proposed at the same time and
these two mechanisms must be able to work together. Otherwise, the
idea has no value. If you do not agree, I suggest you clearly state
why.
In addition to the above requirement, I believe the entire process
MUST be consistent with known chemical and physical laws and not
predict behavior that is not observed. Obviously, a feature of known
law is missing, but this absence of knowledge does not mean a conflict
exists. We only need to discover this missing piece for the
phenomenon to be explained by using what we already know and
understand. Again, if you disagree, please us why. The skeptics
pretend a conflict exists because CF does not act like hot fusion.
They do not consider these are two entirely different phenomena having
no relationship to each other.
These requirements force me to accept the conclusion that one and only
one phenomenon occurs during LENR and this phenomenon operates on all
isotopes of hydrogen (hydrons) and in all materials. Of course, some
isotopes of hydrogen and some materials are more effective in
promoting the reaction than others. This conclusion allows me to
assemble all observations into one logical package rather than
searching for many independent mechanisms. I suggest this approach is
much more likely to give a useful theory than assuming, for example,
that Pd+D2 and Ni+H2 involve different phenomenon.
Ed Storms
On May 26, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Thanks to referring to my blog paper.
Anyway I think your question cannot be answered by a duel
between theories or by logic alone. DGT will publish relevant
analytical data. My bet is that more parallel processes happen
in those NAE and no single theory can explain them all.
Peter
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
I just read Peter’s article http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/06/some-questions-regarding-ed-storms-new.html
on Ed Storms theory. After several exchanges with Ed here on
vortex this weekend, I am willing to admit the hydron is a better
theory than my endless reaction between H2 and H1 precipitated by
changes in Casimir geometry. I am not willing however to dismiss the
change in Casimir geometry as the bootstrap mechanism behind what Ed
terms “NAE” or my relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect
which explains the anomalous decay effects reported for radioactive
gases. I believe in conservation of miracles and that all these
anomalous claims should track back to a single quantum effect
applied in different ways. I suspect Reiseifenschweiler effect, sono
fusion and plasma engines are all cousins with a common underlying
criteria [DCE]. Ed’s theory provides a new pathway -linkage that
allows energy to be extracted out from the “hydrons” to the walls of
NAE where it can be exploited as thermal energy. The covalent
resonating H2 ion is both plausible and worth pursuing, at worst it
would still result in VERY useful clues. At best Ed may have nailed
it and Peters focus on trans theories can simply wait to fall out
from the race for IP that will ensue the minute OU is validated.
Fran
Question #2: The model will be a "trans-theory" only to the extent
that it is acknowledged as plausible and worth exploring. This
acceptance is not assured at this time. As for whether one or many
theories are required depends on how many ways Nature has to cause
LENR. I assume only one basic method is possible. Therefore, only
one theory is needed, i.e. the correct one. We will have to wait
until the proper tests are made to determine which theory is
correct. My model shows exactly which tests need to be done.
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
