On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Ed-- > > You said-- > > >Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. > > I would note that the lattice is a QM system and, although complicated, > obeys the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all > like femions in the system and angular momentum for each particle at any > given time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) > appropriate for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time.
While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR. These comments apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very effective and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not available in a lattice. Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this fact. We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive would not stay stable. Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process would be initiated and the chemical reaction would take place. This simply does not happen. Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks. A chemical lattice does not contain the special features required to support such a process. These features can only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. > > I would further note that lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction > with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the > state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic > energy in the form of heat. The changes may include nuclear and chemical > changes at the same time. Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF must be applied to a real condition. The condition to which it is being applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not spontaneously concentrated in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. > > > From what you say-- > > >"the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure." > > I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic > natural laws that apply to the various LENR systems. Yes, that is the basic conflict between physics and chemistry. Chemistry tries to understand what actually occurs and physics focuses on what MIGHT happen. Do you understand and agree that the laws of thermodynamics apply to a lattice? Do you agree that they place a limit on how energy can operate in a chemical system? Do you agree that these laws operate at the atomic level? Do you agree these limits apply to a nuclear process? > > For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of > the QM lattice system, effecting a change in the potential energy, the > kinetic energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the > various respective particles in the system changing and sharing the energy > and momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin > etc. That is a correct description. However, this does not case a nuclear process to happen. You need a mechanism that lowers the barrier and then dissipates MeV level of energy in small units of energy. Your description does not show how this can be done. > > Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding > LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments. > I welcome your comments, Bob, because they reveal the conceptual differences I need to address to make the arguments effective in educating physicists. Ed Storms > Bob > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Edmund Storms > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: Edmund Storms > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, > > Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the > chemical structure. Once the correct location is identified, QM can be > applied in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM > to the lattice is a waste of time. > > Ed Storms > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were >> to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the "chemical >> environment" of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would >> see a number of chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear >> effect could manifest itself. This is why Ed postulates "nano-cracks" or >> "nano-voids" as the likely nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, >> because these are domains that operate independently of the chemical lattice >> environment (i.e. are not influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where >> nuclear effects can then manifest. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Ed-- >> >> You stated-- >> >If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually >> >observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. >> >> What limitations do you have in mind? >> >> Bob Cook >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Edmund Storms >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Cc: Edmund Storms >> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room, >> >> Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can >> say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not >> acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various >> esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the >> requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and >> observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is >> actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, >> throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As >> a result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is >> known about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is >>> enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”. >>> >>> The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most >>> theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue. >>> >>> To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly >>> complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true >>> essence of a problem. To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive >>> at truth, he asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like >>> by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a >>> darken room where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says >>> the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant >>> is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a >>> tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand >>> fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the >>> one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. >>> >>> >>> The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of >>> you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the >>> different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the >>> features you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must >>> put all these characteristics together into a coherent whole. >>> >>> Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why >>> there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to >>> just one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena. >>> >>> We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and >>> groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must >>> keep on zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and >>> not restrict ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole. >> >> > >
