Dear Ed, Obviously I am thinking about more phenomena with more participants. And something like the main and secondary reactions in chemical syntheses specifically for this occasion I have remembered vinyl chloride from acetyle and from propylene- and the problems with the harmful impurities. But what you say can be true- let's experiment decide. We will discuss this in a documented way later this summer. Hydron or not hydrons, this is the answer too. Peter
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
