John, the super wave simply increases the local concentration, which
is measured as an increase in average D/Pd, increases the local flux,
and puts more stress on the surface, which causes more NAE to form.
Nothing more is required to increase the power. The process can be
explained very simply without adding more complex and impossible to
test processes.
Ed Storms
On Dec 18, 2013, at 8:17 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:
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
