On Dec 20, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:
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.
Yes John, they mentioned a crack as one place the process might
occur. The concept of linear clusters has not been described well
enough for me to understand how this can happen. I understand this is
a cluster of two, being D- and D+ combined in some strange way never
found in Nature before.
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?
The theory is not described as needing these features. It has been
described as occurring on the surface of ordinary particles. Of
course, a hypothetical special condition is proposed, but this seems
not to be necessary for the process to function. The nano-gap is
ESSENTIAL for my model. It is the only condition that is required.
Methods for its creation are described. The TSC theory seems to rely
only on having small particles available. I see no evidence that the
LENR process is uniquely related to having small particles. Small
particles only increase the rate because their high surface area
allows more NAE to form.
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.
These bursts have no logical source. This appears to be an assumption
of convenience.
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 do not believe this conclusion results from the Arata and Iwamura
data. Ask yourself, why would an unstable structure be assembled,
after which it immediately blows apart? This is not how Nature
behaves. All nuclear reactions, when they can occur, lose energy and
go directly to the most stable condition, sometimes in steps but the
steps are always down hill.
Creation of the TSC assumes this structure is more stable in the
lattice than any other combination of deuterons. This cannot be
demonstrated from observation or known thermochemical relationships.
Consequently, this concept is based on assumption.
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.
A cluster of some form is clearly required. However, formation of
the cluster MUST follow the rules of thermochemistry. The cluster
models ignore these rules.
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.
Agreed. That vindication is underway.
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).
Formation of the Rydberg state requires energy. Where does this energy
come from?
Can't wait for the book by the way.
Me too. I'm working every day. Reading the papers again allows many
early conclusions to be changed now that we better understand what is
real and not have to fight skeptics.
Cheers,
Ed
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.
