But Fran, why introduce concepts have have very little support in
conventional science and that create logical inconsistency and
conflict with what is actually observed? The LENR phenomenon follows
all the rules we have accepted in science. Why introduce new ideas
that have no proof and no way to test. Obviously some novel ideas are
required, but why use the proposed Ni+p=Cu reaction as an example?
This reaction has absolutely no support. Why not follow paths that are
based on what is known and only deviate when the path is blocked?
Sorry, but I see no point in discussing an idea that has no
relationship to what is known to occur or even present in the
materials. The phenomenon is difficult enough to understand.
Ed
On Jan 31, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Yes, Ed it sounds strange but my position has always been based on a
caveat to COE that says random motion of gas can never be
exploited.. IMHO these gas atoms are translated via the Ni geometry
and will normally return to ground state unexploited as their local
geometry changes with random motion, the caveat I am suggesting
becomes an option when we heavily load the Ni geometry with gas such
that the fractional h atoms exiting the geometry do not have the
room to return to normal ground state which by itself still gains
you nothing but which opens the door for all these different
theories by accumulating these fractional atoms seeking to return to
ground state. I am keeping an open mind to ALL the various theories
for energy creation but my reason for promoting Arto’s theory was
wrt his perspective on Casimir geometry and the way he illustrates
the field turning to propel the gas atoms down into these smaller
regions where they appear to be lower than ground state.. although
not using the same language as I it appears he is coming to the same
conclusions as to the originating source of the energy.. I am not
too fond of the “neutral atoms” he is suggesting but I think he has
a better handle than most on what is setting the stage.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR
Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has
to climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how
hard getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome
so easily? Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to
experience the role of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst
would have to move from Ni to Ni as each was converted to Cu because
apparently the magic catalyst is not able to add H to copper or
apparently to any thing else. Each small particle of Ni would have
to contain the magic catalyst and a large fraction of the Ni would
have to be converted to Cu in order to account for the energy being
claimed. Common sense is violated! Can people please consider the
obvious and necessary consequences before applying pure imagination?
In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is produced. Rossi even has
withdrawn this claim.
Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Just saw this:
http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/
pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png
I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory
for the ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral
wrt the Ni atom where I would say they are relativistic and held
this way by the bulk of loaded gas occupying the unrelativistic
space that prevents the fractional hydrogen from translating back to
normal as the suppressing geometry is left behind via random
motion ..this pressure then discounts the barrier and allows the
dilated atom to slip “behind” the Ni atom on temporal coordinate
and may be why this effect requires heavy loading such that the
fractional atom doesn’t have opportunity to slip back into normal
ground state anywhere in the surrounding region… accumulating
hydrinos that are denied the opportunity to return to normal after
having left the geometry that caused their condition.
Fran
