No John, the Meulenberg-Sinha Extended Lochon Model and my model are not similar any more than apples and oranges are similar. I have studied the Lochon model. It assumes electrons can get closer to the nucleus than the Bohr orbit and this deep electron can hide the Coulomb barrier. This electron energy state is only supported in theory and has no relationship to what I propose in my model. However, Andrew is trying to fit his theory to mine.
They both propose linear clusters in a crack-NAE (what ELT refers to as a "surface defect"). They also both propose slow dissipation of energy through photons (and ELT includes phonons). Yes there are clear differences beyond this, but the theories are not completely disconnected. The TSC does not require a crack to form and has no clear way to dissipate the energy except from the implausible formation of Be8. It does require an NAE "Sub-Nano Space". Nano-crack, Nano-cavity, Nano-mesh...aren't we splitting hairs a little bit too much? We need more data do we not before we can crown one as "*The*" NAE? The energy dissipation in this model is accomplished through periodic photon bursts as well, again similar to your model. The Be8 hypothesis is at least in line with the experimental findings of Iwamura and Arata that suggest somewhere between 4-6 deuterons are clustering together to initiate fusion. I feel its based on well reasoned "imagination" plus experimental data, even if "unlikely". By imagination I mean proposing ideas that have no support other than imagined theory. My "theory" has support because it comes directly from how LENR behaves, not how I might imagine it behaves based on a quantum theory. Some clearly do this. Like W-L for example. I think the various cluster hypotheses are better grounded in experimental findings. Not all to the same degree of course. In addition, we know a great deal about how LENR behaves. Some theories are in direct conflict with this knowledge base. Of course, a book will be required to demonstrate this claim...No, I do not have the final word. However, I do have a better map and I now know where to dig for the gold, which is what all theories are attempting to discover. Certainly, and your KISS model accounts for the "knowns" quite well in my opinion. But just like other cluster models, the hydroton is novel and still requires more vindication. The only "proven" cluster I know of is the rydberg cluster, and that's only been seen in hot fusion experiments (as far as my understanding goes). Can't wait for the book by the way. Regards, John On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > John, the other theories are in direct logical conflict with each other > and are also in conflict with many observations. I predict the final theory > will be nothing like what has been proposed. > > Ed, > > I'm not proposing to throw all of them into a tumbler and hope a coherent > theory emerges. But clearly certain theories are more analogous to one > another than you believe. For example your theory and Meulenberg-Sinha > Extended Lochon Model have striking similarities. > > > No John, the Meulenberg-Sinha Extended Lochon Model and my model are not > similar any more than apples and oranges are similar. I have studied the > Lochon model. It assumes electrons can get closer to the nucleus than the > Bohr orbit and this deep electron can hide the Coulomb barrier. This > electron energy state is only supported in theory and has no relationship > to what I propose in my model. However, Andrew is trying to fit his theory > to mine. > > And cluster theories like TSC are quite compatible with the idea of a > Nano-NAE (whether crack or cavity). > > > The TSC does not require a crack to form and has no clear way to dissipate > the energy except from the implausible formation of Be8. > > Your theory is perhaps the best at KISS, but you can't always indict > someone for using "imagination", it is simply part of theoretical work. > > > > By imagination I mean proposing ideas that have no support other than > imagined theory. My "theory" has support because it comes directly from how > LENR behaves, not how I might imagine it behaves based on a quantum theory. > > Even you have used "imagination" in developing the hydroton and its > particular dynamics for example. And of course certain speculations go out > on longer limbs than others, and that is when criticism can take center > stage to bring stuff back to reality. > > Clearly there are differences between theories, I'm not attempting to > whitewash the issue. But to say all of them are mutually exclusive is > taking an absolutist position on a phenomenon that is, still in many ways, > not well elucidated. > > > However, what is well elucidated is general science and what has been > discovered about Nature's behavior. In addition, we know a great deal about > how LENR behaves. Some theories are in direct conflict with this knowledge > base. Of course, a book will be required to demonstrate this claim. > > There are still many experiments to do. You can't possibly think any > theory, including yours, is the final word do you? > > > No, I do not have the final word. However, I do have a better map and I > now know where to dig for the gold, which is what all theories are > attempting to discover. > > Cheers. > Ed > > > Regards, > John > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >> Nice effort listing all the theories side by side Jones. Indeed it is >>> quite a smorgasbord, and the final theory will likely being some >>> unpredicted synthesis of two, three, or more. And that's only the main >>> reaction pathway, which we can then add secondary or tertiary pathways to >>> that involve stuff like hot fracto-fusion, Casmir cavitation, etc. >>> >> >> John, the other theories are in direct logical conflict with each other >> and are also in conflict with many observations. I predict the final theory >> will be nothing like what has been proposed. >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> John >>> >> >> Jones, this description has no relationship to my theory. My theory is >> not evolved from fractofusion. Fractofusion results only as the crack is >> formed, which generates a very brief high voltage across the gap. My >> mechanism occurs after the crack had formed and has no relationship to high >> voltages or to hot fusion. I propose a structure forms in a very narrow gap >> that is able to dissipate the mass-energy gradually as photon emission. >> The overall mechanism can explain all observations very logically, which >> the other theories can not do. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> >> * The NASA effort (US 20110255645) suggests a method for producing >>> "heavy electrons" as a fusion catalyst (screening). >>> * The Yeong Kim (Zubarev) proposal of a BEC Bose-Einstein >>> Condensate >>> * The Takahashi tetrahedral TSC model is similar to the BEC. >>> * The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by >>> Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Focardi/ Rossi/ Brillouin/ NASA >>> explanation. >>> * Polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving >>> plasmons, surface phonons and photons. This is more of an "enabler" >>> pathway. >>> * Casimir dynamics, in general including a dynamical effect. This >>> is >>> also an "enabler" pathway as are other geometry constraints. >>> * Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from >>> long-lived >>> but unstable isotopes like potassium-40. >>> * RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the strong >>> force, >>> QCD and a transient state, the diproton, deriving energy from quark or >>> gluon >>> mass. >>> * The "nanomagnetism" ideas of Brian Ahern - which is a formative >>> theory involving magnons and cyclical phase change around the Curie >>> point of >>> Ni. >>> * Any combination or permutation of the above - since none of them >>> is >>> mutually exclusive and most experiments cannot be defined by a single >>> hypothesis. >>> >>> There are many more, especially variations and refinements. Pardon me if >>> I >>> have overlooked your favorite, but this is a running effort and your >>> favorite may appear on the next list. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > >
