Ed, You're right. All of the factors listed are obviously coupled in a meaningful way. Overall theory likely works without reference to point (D). However there does seem to be something demonstrably different about something like the super-wave. It's clearly not a standard current, and its been empirically shown to get higher output from cells. Like I said, my beliefs about "kick starting" are speculative, but I think quasi-particle (phonons, plasmons, etc.) formation might be amplified given the right stimulus and could accelerate whatever mechanism is at play in the NAE.
Regards, John On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > John, each of these conditions have an independent role. A High flux makes > D more rapidly available to the NAE. B. High loading makes D more available > as well. C. The concentration of NAE determines the number of little > generators. D. No kick starting is necessary. This is a conventional > process. The rate of fuel addition and the number of generators determines > total power. The only unknown is the nature of the reaction that burns the > fuel. Making the process more complicated serves no purpose. > > Ed Storms > > > On Dec 18, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > You might also consider that this "stimulus" would also produce cracks, > which I claim is the essential condition. > Right Ed. I think the effect is four-fold when proper stimulus is applied: > A) High Flux, B) High Loading, C) Facilitates NAE Formation (Nano-Cracks > and/or Sub-Nano Cavities and/or Complex Topology), D) Kick Starts the > Mechanism in a Novel Way. > > D is the most speculative, based mostly on my own reading and, admittedly > limited, intuition. > > Also, well stated Jones. MFMP is doing a great job and are open-source > pioneers. > > Regards, > John > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You know – these guys are discovering the myriad of relatively simple >> hints that will eventually add-up to success - and they have put into play >> an admirable R&D structure with minimal funds. Thumbs up for MFMP - >> regardless of ultimate success in LNER. They may also make a broader impact >> on how – in an organizational sense, we can tackle any important project >> which is budget-starved and relatively ignored by the mainstream. >> >> >> >> My guess would be that the same level of competence which these guys are >> showing in terms of taking good ideas to actually devices which accumulate >> good data - and doing it expediently – compared to a how the typical >> bureaucracy works (NASA, DOE etc) would be a factor of 10 more efficient >> and less costly. >> >> >> >> These guys are doing more with less, and therefore let’s put in a plug >> for them: if anyone here gets into the Christmas Spirit in a big way, say >> by the winning mega-million ticket, then send some loot their way … >> >> >> >> If there were a dozen of these MFMP projects underway now, and sharing >> data, the problem (opportunity) of LENR would be mostly solved next year. >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> *From:* H Veeder >> >> >> >> An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: >> >> <<May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing >> without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that >> has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a >> useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, >> what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means >> to "trigger" reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this >> is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7IR37Do7NlY%23t%3D143&h=xAQGZH2gkAQG5_dkKG2C0Trp21ZirR22WsQ-2Y_0XFKf_MQ&s=1> >> > > >
